Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5423391 — Harassment
Decided 29 Jan 2026 · Published 29 Jan 2026 · Application 5423391
- Harassment
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
M Pollak
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
- The tenancy of [The tenant] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord], at 5:00pm on Thursday 12 February 2026.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. [name supressed] appeared for the landlord and [name suppressed] appeared as support person for the tenant.
- The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
- The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour complained about by a number of the tenant’s neighbours, from his floor of the apartment complex he lives in, is “yelling, screaming, shouting and using phrases and curse words repeatedly”.
- Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
- The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
- [Name suppressed] has confirmed: a. She has received multiple verbal complaints from a number of the tenant’s vulnerable neighbours/complainants, who went into the office and made their complaints directly to her; b. All of the verbal complaints have been about the same type of anti-social conduct, being yelling, screaming and shouting, often late at night or in the early hours of the morning; c. The office has also received multiple phone calls from other tenants complaining of the same types of anti-social behaviour; d. The landlord has only issued anti-social behaviour breach notices in relation to the face-to-face verbal complaints made to [name suppressed]. The phone calls have not been taken into consideration in the landlord’s making of this application for termination of the tenancy for anti-social behaviour; and e. Breach notices were issued to the tenant: i. On 7 October 2025, for yelling, screaming, shouting phrases and curse words repeatedly on 22, 25 and 28 September 2025, and 5 October 2025 (notice 1); ii. On 21 November 2025, for yelling, screaming, shouting and disturbing the neighbours on 19 November 2025 (notice 2); iii. On 22 December 2025 for yelling, screaming, shouting and disturbing the neighbours on 2 December 2025 (notice 3); and iv. On 8 January 2026 for yelling, screaming, shouting and causing distress/anguish to several of his neighbours on 6 January 2026 for several hours from 1am (notice 4).
- The tenant denies having engaged in any anti-social behaviour and stated that he has not had any interactions with his neighbours so could not possibly have upset them with anti-social behaviour. He appeared not to fully understand that the loud noises made in his apartment at night carry through the walls, can be heard by his neighbours, and have caused his neighbours significant distress and impacted negatively on their ability to sleep.
- The tenant expressed concerns that he has not seen any written complaints and none of the complaints appeared at today’s hearing to confirm the landlord’s evidence.
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
- As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
- I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
- I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above and have determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant. The landlord has served notices on the tenant, as required in the RTA, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice, being 8 January 2026.
- I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose, and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application. While I empathise with the tenant’s distress at having to move and having no where to move too at present, I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy. The tenancy is terminated as at 5:00pm on Thursday 12 February 2026. Name suppression
- The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
- The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- The landlord has wholly succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Non-publication is ordered.
- I also use my discretion to suppress the tenant’s name. He is a vulnerable person that has found himself living in an apartment complex that is not suitable for his needs. Consequently, how he behaves behind the closed doors of his own home has impacted on the neighbours. They live in close proximity to his apartment and can hear when the tenant speaks loudly. The tenant holds a reasonable belief that he should be allowed to speak/shout/yell inside the privacy of his own home without fear of eviction. Unfortunately, that conduct has disturbed/disturbed others in the neighbouring apartments.
- Publishing the tenant’s name could prevent him from being accepted as a tenant by other social housing providers. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. He is simply living in unsuitable accommodation and needs to be in a more suitable living environment for his needs. The potential detriment to the tenant outweighs the public interest in this matter.