What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5425301 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5425301?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425301?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425301?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13243528-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5425301 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5425301?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425301?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425301?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13243528-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5425301 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The landlord’s application for termination is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms [N]. The tenant was accompanied by her friend [A] who has been the subject of complaints by neighbours, leading to the application before the Tribunal.
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 is caused by [A] who is staying with the tenant. There is no dispute that he is at the premises with the tenant’s permission. She says that he has been staying because she has been disturbed by the behaviour of her former partner who has been released from prison. She has a protection order against him.
On two occasions [A] has climbed up to the tenant’s flat on level 3 via the wall and balcony. On another occasion, there was a disturbance at 2am when he was chased and apprehended by the Police.
The landlord produced two videos. One shows about 5 police at the property at about 2.10am on Wednesday 26 November 2025. [A] is shown being apprehended. The tenant said that this occurred after they had had an argument.
The other video shows [A] jumping over a fence into the yard of a neighbour. It is during the day. They have a conversation and then he leaves the same way he came. The video does not show him climbing up the building.
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 Act 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.
The conduct described would cause alarm or distress to other neighbours, but probably fits more appropriately under section 40(2)(c) which says that a tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. Climbing up onto the balcony of another tenant would interfere with their reasonable peace, comfort and privacy, as would being disturbed in the early hours of the morning by an occupant being chased by the Police.
However, as explained to Ms N, I have declined to terminate the tenancy under section 50A because of an irregularity with the service of the notices. The dates of the notices and the events described are as follows: Notice numberDateDate of events
27 November 2025 25 November 2025
15 December 202511 December 2025
6 January 202626 November 2025
The landlord has served notices on the tenant, but there is an irregularity because the third notice concerns conduct which pre-dates the second notice. It effectively makes the second notice the third one.
My interpretation of section 55A is that each notice must be given after the relevant incident and before the next incident for it to count towards the three- notice requirement. Otherwise, the tenant has not had proper opportunities to rectify the situation or challenge the notices before the final one is issued.
Although section 85 of the Act provides that the Tribunal shall not be bound to give effect to legal forms or technicalities, section 55A is a mechanism whereby the landlord can apply to the Tribunal for termination without the need to call the witnesses to the events. The very precise requirements of section 55A RTA indicates that Parliament intended strict compliance.
The application under section 55A is dismissed. Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56 for breach of the tenancy agreement?
Although the landlord’s application did not refer to section 56, that section was included in the notice of hearing. Therefore I have considered whether to terminate the tenancy under that section, which says that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant has breached their obligations because a person who is at the premises with her consent has disturbed the peace and quiet of the neighbours 1 on three occasions.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
In the present case, it is arguable that the damage had been done and so in that sense it is not a breach capable of remedy, but it is clearly the type of breach where the landlord should warn the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate. In this case, this was done by issuing the section 55A notices.
However, the landlord called no evidence from the tenants about the impact of the breaches. The two incidents when [A] scaled the building occurred during the day. On one occasion he needed to get into the premises when the tenant was absent and on the other, the tenant had lost her swipe card to get into the building. One of the neighbours consented to him climbing up, but the other did not.
As indicated at the hearing, I consider his behaviour would have been upsetting for the tenant’s neighbours and it is not surprising that a complaint was made. However, in the absence of evidence from the neighbours about the impact, I am not persuaded on the balance that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. Put another way, on the evidence before me, it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy.
However, the tenant is now clearly on notice that the landlord is fielding complaints from neighbours. If [A] does not show more consideration for their quiet enjoyment, the tenant’s home is in jeopardy.
I also note that if there are further breaches, the landlord may decided to seek exemplary damages. Breaching the obligation towards the neighbours in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Because the landlord has not been successful there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. 1 As noted above, that is a breach of her obligations under section 40(2) of the Act.
I have decided to suppress the tenant’s name because no orders have been made against her and because she has been dealing with family violence from her previous partner. She is encouraged to seek advice about the enforcement of her protection order.
Because identification of the landlord in association with the facts of this case may lead to identification of the tenant, I have also suppressed their name and the tenant’s friend’s name.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms [N]. The tenant was accompanied by her friend [A] who has been the subject of complaints by neighbours, leading to the application before the Tribunal.

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 is caused by [A] who is staying with the tenant. There is no dispute that he is at the premises with the tenant’s permission. She says that he has been staying because she has been disturbed by the behaviour of her former partner who has been released from prison. She has a protection order against him.

On two occasions [A] has climbed up to the tenant’s flat on level 3 via the wall and balcony. On another occasion, there was a disturbance at 2am when he was chased and apprehended by the Police.

The landlord produced two videos. One shows about 5 police at the property at about 2.10am on Wednesday 26 November 2025. [A] is shown being apprehended. The tenant said that this occurred after they had had an argument.

The other video shows [A] jumping over a fence into the yard of a neighbour. It is during the day. They have a conversation and then he leaves the same way he came. The video does not show him climbing up the building.

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 Act 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.

The conduct described would cause alarm or distress to other neighbours, but probably fits more appropriately under section 40(2)(c) which says that a tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. Climbing up onto the balcony of another tenant would interfere with their reasonable peace, comfort and privacy, as would being disturbed in the early hours of the morning by an occupant being chased by the Police.

However, as explained to Ms N, I have declined to terminate the tenancy under section 50A because of an irregularity with the service of the notices. The dates of the notices and the events described are as follows: Notice numberDateDate of events

27 November 2025 25 November 2025

15 December 202511 December 2025

6 January 202626 November 2025

The landlord has served notices on the tenant, but there is an irregularity because the third notice concerns conduct which pre-dates the second notice. It effectively makes the second notice the third one.

My interpretation of section 55A is that each notice must be given after the relevant incident and before the next incident for it to count towards the three- notice requirement. Otherwise, the tenant has not had proper opportunities to rectify the situation or challenge the notices before the final one is issued.

Although section 85 of the Act provides that the Tribunal shall not be bound to give effect to legal forms or technicalities, section 55A is a mechanism whereby the landlord can apply to the Tribunal for termination without the need to call the witnesses to the events. The very precise requirements of section 55A RTA indicates that Parliament intended strict compliance.

The application under section 55A is dismissed. Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56 for breach of the tenancy agreement?

Although the landlord’s application did not refer to section 56, that section was included in the notice of hearing. Therefore I have considered whether to terminate the tenancy under that section, which says that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.

Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

The tenant has breached their obligations because a person who is at the premises with her consent has disturbed the peace and quiet of the neighbours 1 on three occasions.

Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.

However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.

In the present case, it is arguable that the damage had been done and so in that sense it is not a breach capable of remedy, but it is clearly the type of breach where the landlord should warn the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate. In this case, this was done by issuing the section 55A notices.

However, the landlord called no evidence from the tenants about the impact of the breaches. The two incidents when [A] scaled the building occurred during the day. On one occasion he needed to get into the premises when the tenant was absent and on the other, the tenant had lost her swipe card to get into the building. One of the neighbours consented to him climbing up, but the other did not.

As indicated at the hearing, I consider his behaviour would have been upsetting for the tenant’s neighbours and it is not surprising that a complaint was made. However, in the absence of evidence from the neighbours about the impact, I am not persuaded on the balance that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. Put another way, on the evidence before me, it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy.

However, the tenant is now clearly on notice that the landlord is fielding complaints from neighbours. If [A] does not show more consideration for their quiet enjoyment, the tenant’s home is in jeopardy.

I also note that if there are further breaches, the landlord may decided to seek exemplary damages. Breaching the obligation towards the neighbours in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Because the landlord has not been successful there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. 1 As noted above, that is a breach of her obligations under section 40(2) of the Act.

I have decided to suppress the tenant’s name because no orders have been made against her and because she has been dealing with family violence from her previous partner. She is encouraged to seek advice about the enforcement of her protection order.

Because identification of the landlord in association with the facts of this case may lead to identification of the tenant, I have also suppressed their name and the tenant’s friend’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425301 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425301 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55A for anti-social behaviour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55A for anti-social behaviour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions