What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438271 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 5438271?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438271?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13403969-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5438271 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 5438271?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5438271?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5438271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13403969-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5438271 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held remotely on 25 February 2026. I gave an oral decision at the end of that hearing dismissing the landlord’s application. I apologise for the delay in finalising this written decision.
This is a landlord application for an order to terminate the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour by the tenant, or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission. The landlord says the grounds (or reasons) are serious and urgent.
The landlord is the applicant so must prove its claim to the civil law standard of proof: “on the balance of probabilities”. This means I must be satisfied that what the landlord says is more probable than not. What does the law say about terminating a tenancy for anti-social behaviour or other breach?
A landlord has several options when it considers that a tenant, or someone the tenant is responsible for, has breached their tenancy agreement, or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord could:- a. Verbally discuss the issue with the tenant; or b. Give a “14-day notice”. This is a written notice which sets out the details of the breach and requires the tenant to remedy the breach within a reasonable period (of not less than 14 days). If the breach is not remedied within that reasonable period, or it is something that cannot be remedied, and if the nature and extent of the breach mean the landlord wants the tenancy to terminate, then the landlord can apply to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy; see section 56 RTA; or c. If the breach is harassment or something that causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor, give an “anti-social behaviour notice”. This is a written notice describing the breach and who did it, its date, time and location, how many other notices the landlord has given for something similar in the last 90 days and advising the tenant they can challenge the notice by applying to the Tribunal; see section 55A RTA. d. If there have been three separate occasions within a 90-day period of anti- social behaviour and, on each occasion, the landlord has given the tenant a written notice with all the correct information in it, then the landlord may apply to the Tribunal within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice for an order to terminate the tenancy because of the behaviour; s55A RTA. e. If the breach is serious and urgent and cannot be remedied, apply straight away to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy. Written notice to the tenant may or may not be also given. Examples of serious or urgent breaches include when rent is at least 21 days in arrears, the tenant or other person they are responsible for has threatened to or assaulted the landlord or owner or their family, or the agent or a neighbour, or threatened or caused substantial damage to the premises; s55 RTA. Background
The landlord has made a previous application to the Tribunal to terminate this tenancy. That application was also dismissed.
After the earlier Tribunal decision was made, the landlord wrote to the tenant (on 7 July 2025) and sent him a list of what it called “Obligations/Expectations” it said are included in his tenancy agreement. These included:- a. Taking responsibility for the behaviour of other people who live in or visit the tenant’s home; b. Not disturbing the neighbours’ peace, comfort or privacy; c. Not blocking access to any other property or driveway and to only use his own allocated parking space.
The landlord also informed the tenant it could apply to end his tenancy in certain circumstances including if it has issued three separate breach notices within 90 days.

The tenancy premises are located on a one-way lane ([Tenancy address suppressed]) that gives access to several townhouses. Each townhouse has its own designated parking space or spaces in front of it, situated off the lane.
The tenancy agreement says
The landlord says the tenant (or his visitors) have breached these clauses and that this is anti-social behaviour, by:- a. Driving unsafely in the lane; b. Exiting the lane (onto the adjoining road) using the entry point. In other words, driving the wrong way in a one-way street and using the entry to go out; c. Parking within the lane and sometimes to block access to another property, parking space, or to a footpath; d. Behaviour reported as intimidating and causing other neighbours to feel unsafe.
The law defines antisocial behaviour as harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor; s55A(7) RTA.
My decisions are:- a. the behaviour in ‘a’ is not anti-social behaviour because the unsafe driving is not clearly described. For example, was it speeding, swerving, or what exactly? b. the behaviour described in ‘b’ is anti-social behaviour because driving the wrong way up a one-way lane would cause anyone driving in the correct direction to be alarmed or distressed. It could cause a vehicle collision or an accident with a pedestrian who was not expecting a vehicle to be coming from the wrong direction. c. The behaviour described in ‘c’ is anti-social behaviour because parking in a way that blocks access to another property or another parking space is a nuisance and, if it happens repeatedly, it is more than minor. It is also a breach of clause 20 and 21 of the tenancy agreement. d. The behaviour described in ‘d’ is not anti-social behaviour because the intimidating behaviour is not clearly described. For example, was it swearing, shouting, threats and who was targeted? Has the landlord proved the tenant (or visitor) engaged in anti-social behaviour on three separate occasions within a 90-day period and were the required notices given? Section 55A RTA.
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 landlord has sent the tenant several written letters and “notices” over the time from 7 July 2025 up to 16 February 2026. The landlord’s application to the Tribunal was filed on 4 February 2026.
I have decided to list the letters and notices because there are several of them:- a. On 7/07/2025: a letter outlining expectations in the tenancy agreement and giving the tenant information about when a landlord might apply to the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy; b. On 16/10/2025: a letter saying it was a “formal breach letter” describing alleged behaviour in breach of the tenancy agreement but giving no dates or times, and warning an application to terminate the tenancy may be made; c. On 24/10/2025: a letter saying it was a “second breach of your tenancy agreement” which described the colours and types of vehicles and the alleged breach behaviours but did not give dates or times, and warning that an application to terminate the tenancy may be made; d. On 19/11/2025: a letter asking for a meeting; e. On 27/11/2025: a letter recording discussion at a meeting on 25 November 2025 and attaching a “breach notice” alleging anti-social behaviour but not advising the dates or times of this and saying it is the first notice; f. On 23/12/2025: a letter and attached “second breach notice” which read together describe clearly specific occasions of anti-social behaviour and give dates, times and locations and saying it is the second notice; g. On 15/01/2026: a “breach notice” describing clear and specific occasions of anti-social behaviour and giving dates, times and locations and saying it is the third notice; h. On 16/02/2026: a “breach notice” describing a clear and specific occasion of anti-social behaviour and giving the date, time and location and saying it is a fourth notice.
The tenant did not make a formal application to the Tribunal to challenge the landlord’s notices. However, he did attend the hearing and verbally challenge the alleged anti-social behaviour and the notices. First alleged occasion of anti-social behaviour: notice dated 27/11/25
The first letter and notice the landlord gave the tenant about anti-social behaviour are dated 27/11/25.
The notice says:
Neither the letter nor the notice gives details of a specific occasion or occasions of anti-social behaviour. There are no dates, times or locations provided.
The landlord told me this is because the alleged behaviour took place over time and had been discussed by the landlord and tenant at a meeting that took place on 25 November 2025. The letter and notice were intended to record those occasions and the meeting.
The landlord said it did have multiple email complaints from neighbours about the incidents but did not provide any of these in evidence because the complainants wanted to remain anonymous.
The tenant agreed that the landlord’s summary of the meeting was accurate. He had met with the landlord and discussed some occasions when he or his visitors had parked or exited the lane incorrectly and had been told that even if other residents did this, it did not mean that he could.
My decision is that the landlord has not proved that anti-social behaviour occurred on a specific occasion before this notice was given because there are no details of a date, time or location. Even if the tenant agrees the behaviour has occurred, this notice does not give the specific details so does not comply with s55A(2) RTA. Second alleged occasion of anti-social behaviour: letter and notice dated 23/12/25
The second letter and notice the landlord gave the tenant about anti-social behaviour are dated 23/12/25.
If they are read together, the letter and the notice allege that:-
Again, the landlord did not provide supporting evidence to corroborate the above alleged incidents. There were no photographs, videos, emails or oral evidence from witnesses provided.
The landlord says it does have photographs but had not supplied these because it would be clear from the direction of the photos who had taken them and, again, it wanted to preserve the complainants’ anonymity. It agreed the tenant had not seen the photos (for the same reason).
The tenant told me he doesn’t think the specific dated incidents described in the landlord’s notices happened. His opinion is that the information is confused because there are other cars (not associated with him or his premises) that park in the wrong place or exit the wrong way from the lane.
My decision is that the lack of corroborating evidence means I am not satisfied that any of the alleged separate occasions of anti-social behaviour most probably occurred. Third alleged occasion of anti-social behaviour: notice dated 15/01/26
The third notice is dated 15/01/26 and alleges:
The landlord’s representative at the hearing said he had personally assessed photos and emails provided by complainants and concluded that the above incidents did occur. None of the photos or emails were provided in evidence.
The tenant said his visitors only parked in his parking spot or in his driveway.
I asked the landlord’s representative to describe to me the evidence he was relying on. He said he did not have those photographs or emails in front of him while he was giving me this oral evidence. He also said the emails described people parking, then getting out of their cars, and going into the tenant’s house.
The representative also told me that one of the email complaints was about a neighbour being sworn at when he asked one of the tenant’s visitors not to park in their driveway.
The difficulty is that this is called hearsay evidence. One person who is not at the hearing, sends evidence to someone who is at the hearing about what the first person saw or heard. The Tribunal can accept hearsay evidence, but it is considerably less reliable than direct evidence from the person who saw the event. This is because neither the tenant nor the Tribunal can ask questions about it.
I did ask the tenant about the alleged incidents. He told me that he remembers an occasion when someone who visited him told him he had “just had a thing with his in-laws”. The tenant explained that this visitor sometimes parked in the neighbour’s driveway because these neighbours were his in-laws.
The landlord’s representative said there was no mention from the complainant of being related to the visitor who had sworn at them.
This is a good example of why hearsay evidence is problematic. We could not talk to the complainant or look at photos or listen to a recording, so it is difficult to test what happened.
The tenant said he could not recall incidents involving any of the described vehicles.
My decision is that the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy me that any of the alleged separate occasions of anti-social behaviour described in this notice most probably occurred. Fourth alleged occasion of anti-social behaviour: notice dated 16/02/2026
A fourth notice of anti-social behaviour was sent to the tenant by the landlord.
It says:
The landlord supplied a photograph showing a blue vehicle parked partly on a footpath and partly on the lane. The landlord’s schedule of exhibits states this photo relates to the incident on 11 February 2026 at approximately 6:45pm as described in the written notice dated 16/02/2026.
This alleged incident was not discussed in the hearing because I had already decided that the landlord had not proven there had been three separate occasions of anti-social behaviour. Decision on s55A RTA anti-social behaviour
In summary, the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour under section 55A RTA is dismissed. There was insufficient evidence to satisfy me that three separate occasions of the alleged behaviour occurred within a 90-day period.
I explained to the parties that I understand that neighbours who complain may want to remain anonymous. The problem is that if they are anonymous, and their complaints and photos are not provided, then there is no way for the tenant or the Tribunal to test what they are saying.
I also note that if a landlord is applying to terminate a tenancy under section 55A RTA, it must have given the tenant, in writing, the specific information listed in that section (see above at 14b).
The reason for the requirements is so the tenant knows exactly what they are being accused of doing.
This is about what is sometimes called “natural justice” which says that everyone should have a fair chance to know what they are alleged to have done wrong. This is the only way someone can then have a fair chance to give their side of things.
If I am accused of doing something but no one tells me what exactly that is, or on what day, where, and approximately when I am alleged to have done it, then I cannot give an explanation.
The requirements in s55A RTA also include advising the tenant that they can apply to the Tribunal to challenge the notice. The purpose of this is also about natural justice. Everyone has the right to have a fair chance to explain their side of things to a decision-maker and to give any evidence that supports their view.
The letter or notice given to a tenant does not have to have a special title or use the words “breach notice”, or “anti-social behaviour notice”. There is no specific form that must be used. What is important is that the tenant is given written notice of all the required information listed in s55A(2) RTA. Could the Tribunal terminate the tenancy because of a tenant breach under section 56 RTA even though the landlord did not specifically mention this section in the hearing?
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy if an application is made under s56 RTA; see that section and 5b above.
The landlord did select the option to apply under s56 in the application form but did not specifically address section 56 RTA in its submissions. It focused instead on its three “anti-social behaviour” notices (s55A RTA).
Section 56 RTA also has certain requirements. If the alleged breach is something that can be remedied, the landlord must give the tenant a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring them to remedy the breach within a reasonable period (of not less than 14 days). If the breach is not something that can be remedied, the landlord does not have to give the notice. Presumably this is because there is no point giving the tenant a notice if nothing can be done to remedy the breach.
I did consider s56 RTA when I made my oral decision. It seemed fair to me to do so because the landlord had included it in its application, it was included in the notice of hearing sent to the tenant, and because some of the letters and notices sent by the landlord to the tenant said they were giving the tenant an opportunity to remedy the alleged breaches (see the letters dated 16/10/25 and 24/10/25).
My decision is to dismiss the application to terminate the tenancy pursuant to s56 RTA because:- a. The landlord did not satisfy me that the tenant has breached any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement or of the RTA. b. There was only one piece of direct evidence provided by the landlord which was the photo of the blue car parked partly on the footpath and partly on the lane. There was no evidence to link this car with the tenant or with someone he was responsible for. c. Even if the blue car had been linked to the tenant, I would not have terminated the tenancy because of one proven instance of parking in breach of the tenancy agreement. It is not a breach “of such a nature or extent” that means it would be unfair (inequitable) to refuse to terminate the tenancy; s56 RTA.
I mention another important feature of the evidence and the hearing.
The landlord included in evidence a NZ Police record of callouts to the tenancy address over a period of 12 months. This shows there have been 12 callouts for service from the first on 5 January 2025 up to the last on 19 October 2025.
The landlord told me this shows there have been several incidents causing disturbance and distress. When I asked more about this, the landlord confirmed it has emails from complainants about the police attendances but has not based this application on those complaints and has not sent letters or notices to the tenant about them.
I cannot make a decision about incidents that are not included in this application and about which there is no direct evidence. Suppression of names
The landlord has not been successful in the application and there is no reason to suppress its name. 1
The allegations have not been proven so I suppress the tenant’s name. 2

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held remotely on 25 February 2026. I gave an oral decision at the end of that hearing dismissing the landlord’s application. I apologise for the delay in finalising this written decision.

This is a landlord application for an order to terminate the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour by the tenant, or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission. The landlord says the grounds (or reasons) are serious and urgent.

The landlord is the applicant so must prove its claim to the civil law standard of proof: “on the balance of probabilities”. This means I must be satisfied that what the landlord says is more probable than not. What does the law say about terminating a tenancy for anti-social behaviour or other breach?

A landlord has several options when it considers that a tenant, or someone the tenant is responsible for, has breached their tenancy agreement, or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The landlord could:- a. Verbally discuss the issue with the tenant; or b. Give a “14-day notice”. This is a written notice which sets out the details of the breach and requires the tenant to remedy the breach within a reasonable period (of not less than 14 days). If the breach is not remedied within that reasonable period, or it is something that cannot be remedied, and if the nature and extent of the breach mean the landlord wants the tenancy to terminate, then the landlord can apply to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy; see section 56 RTA; or c. If the breach is harassment or something that causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor, give an “anti-social behaviour notice”. This is a written notice describing the breach and who did it, its date, time and location, how many other notices the landlord has given for something similar in the last 90 days and advising the tenant they can challenge the notice by applying to the Tribunal; see section 55A RTA. d. If there have been three separate occasions within a 90-day period of anti- social behaviour and, on each occasion, the landlord has given the tenant a written notice with all the correct information in it, then the landlord may apply to the Tribunal within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice for an order to terminate the tenancy because of the behaviour; s55A RTA. e. If the breach is serious and urgent and cannot be remedied, apply straight away to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy. Written notice to the tenant may or may not be also given. Examples of serious or urgent breaches include when rent is at least 21 days in arrears, the tenant or other person they are responsible for has threatened to or assaulted the landlord or owner or their family, or the agent or a neighbour, or threatened or caused substantial damage to the premises; s55 RTA. Background

The landlord has made a previous application to the Tribunal to terminate this tenancy. That application was also dismissed.

After the earlier Tribunal decision was made, the landlord wrote to the tenant (on 7 July 2025) and sent him a list of what it called “Obligations/Expectations” it said are included in his tenancy agreement. These included:- a. Taking responsibility for the behaviour of other people who live in or visit the tenant’s home; b. Not disturbing the neighbours’ peace, comfort or privacy; c. Not blocking access to any other property or driveway and to only use his own allocated parking space.

The landlord also informed the tenant it could apply to end his tenancy in certain circumstances including if it has issued three separate breach notices within 90 days.

The tenancy premises are located on a one-way lane ([Tenancy address suppressed]) that gives access to several townhouses. Each townhouse has its own designated parking space or spaces in front of it, situated off the lane.

The tenancy agreement says

The landlord says the tenant (or his visitors) have breached these clauses and that this is anti-social behaviour, by:- a. Driving unsafely in the lane; b. Exiting the lane (onto the adjoining road) using the entry point. In other words, driving the wrong way in a one-way street and using the entry to go out; c. Parking within the lane and sometimes to block access to another property, parking space, or to a footpath; d. Behaviour reported as intimidating and causing other neighbours to feel unsafe.

The law defines antisocial behaviour as harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor; s55A(7) RTA.

My decisions are:- a. the behaviour in ‘a’ is not anti-social behaviour because the unsafe driving is not clearly described. For example, was it speeding, swerving, or what exactly? b. the behaviour described in ‘b’ is anti-social behaviour because driving the wrong way up a one-way lane would cause anyone driving in the correct direction to be alarmed or distressed. It could cause a vehicle collision or an accident with a pedestrian who was not expecting a vehicle to be coming from the wrong direction. c. The behaviour described in ‘c’ is anti-social behaviour because parking in a way that blocks access to another property or another parking space is a nuisance and, if it happens repeatedly, it is more than minor. It is also a breach of clause 20 and 21 of the tenancy agreement. d. The behaviour described in ‘d’ is not anti-social behaviour because the intimidating behaviour is not clearly described. For example, was it swearing, shouting, threats and who was targeted? Has the landlord proved the tenant (or visitor) engaged in anti-social behaviour on three separate occasions within a 90-day period and were the required notices given? Section 55A RTA.

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 landlord has sent the tenant several written letters and “notices” over the time from 7 July 2025 up to 16 February 2026. The landlord’s application to the Tribunal was filed on 4 February 2026.

I have decided to list the letters and notices because there are several of them:- a. On 7/07/2025: a letter outlining expectations in the tenancy agreement and giving the tenant information about when a landlord might apply to the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy; b. On 16/10/2025: a letter saying it was a “formal breach letter” describing alleged behaviour in breach of the tenancy agreement but giving no dates or times, and warning an application to terminate the tenancy may be made; c. On 24/10/2025: a letter saying it was a “second breach of your tenancy agreement” which described the colours and types of vehicles and the alleged breach behaviours but did not give dates or times, and warning that an application to terminate the tenancy may be made; d. On 19/11/2025: a letter asking for a meeting; e. On 27/11/2025: a letter recording discussion at a meeting on 25 November 2025 and attaching a “breach notice” alleging anti-social behaviour but not advising the dates or times of this and saying it is the first notice; f. On 23/12/2025: a letter and attached “second breach notice” which read together describe clearly specific occasions of anti-social behaviour and give dates, times and locations and saying it is the second notice; g. On 15/01/2026: a “breach notice” describing clear and specific occasions of anti-social behaviour and giving dates, times and locations and saying it is the third notice; h. On 16/02/2026: a “breach notice” describing a clear and specific occasion of anti-social behaviour and giving the date, time and location and saying it is a fourth notice.

The tenant did not make a formal application to the Tribunal to challenge the landlord’s notices. However, he did attend the hearing and verbally challenge the alleged anti-social behaviour and the notices. First alleged occasion of anti-social behaviour: notice dated 27/11/25

The first letter and notice the landlord gave the tenant about anti-social behaviour are dated 27/11/25.

The notice says:

Neither the letter nor the notice gives details of a specific occasion or occasions of anti-social behaviour. There are no dates, times or locations provided.

The landlord told me this is because the alleged behaviour took place over time and had been discussed by the landlord and tenant at a meeting that took place on 25 November 2025. The letter and notice were intended to record those occasions and the meeting.

The landlord said it did have multiple email complaints from neighbours about the incidents but did not provide any of these in evidence because the complainants wanted to remain anonymous.

The tenant agreed that the landlord’s summary of the meeting was accurate. He had met with the landlord and discussed some occasions when he or his visitors had parked or exited the lane incorrectly and had been told that even if other residents did this, it did not mean that he could.

My decision is that the landlord has not proved that anti-social behaviour occurred on a specific occasion before this notice was given because there are no details of a date, time or location. Even if the tenant agrees the behaviour has occurred, this notice does not give the specific details so does not comply with s55A(2) RTA. Second alleged occasion of anti-social behaviour: letter and notice dated 23/12/25

The second letter and notice the landlord gave the tenant about anti-social behaviour are dated 23/12/25.

If they are read together, the letter and the notice allege that:-

Again, the landlord did not provide supporting evidence to corroborate the above alleged incidents. There were no photographs, videos, emails or oral evidence from witnesses provided.

The landlord says it does have photographs but had not supplied these because it would be clear from the direction of the photos who had taken them and, again, it wanted to preserve the complainants’ anonymity. It agreed the tenant had not seen the photos (for the same reason).

The tenant told me he doesn’t think the specific dated incidents described in the landlord’s notices happened. His opinion is that the information is confused because there are other cars (not associated with him or his premises) that park in the wrong place or exit the wrong way from the lane.

My decision is that the lack of corroborating evidence means I am not satisfied that any of the alleged separate occasions of anti-social behaviour most probably occurred. Third alleged occasion of anti-social behaviour: notice dated 15/01/26

The third notice is dated 15/01/26 and alleges:

The landlord’s representative at the hearing said he had personally assessed photos and emails provided by complainants and concluded that the above incidents did occur. None of the photos or emails were provided in evidence.

The tenant said his visitors only parked in his parking spot or in his driveway.

I asked the landlord’s representative to describe to me the evidence he was relying on. He said he did not have those photographs or emails in front of him while he was giving me this oral evidence. He also said the emails described people parking, then getting out of their cars, and going into the tenant’s house.

The representative also told me that one of the email complaints was about a neighbour being sworn at when he asked one of the tenant’s visitors not to park in their driveway.

The difficulty is that this is called hearsay evidence. One person who is not at the hearing, sends evidence to someone who is at the hearing about what the first person saw or heard. The Tribunal can accept hearsay evidence, but it is considerably less reliable than direct evidence from the person who saw the event. This is because neither the tenant nor the Tribunal can ask questions about it.

I did ask the tenant about the alleged incidents. He told me that he remembers an occasion when someone who visited him told him he had “just had a thing with his in-laws”. The tenant explained that this visitor sometimes parked in the neighbour’s driveway because these neighbours were his in-laws.

The landlord’s representative said there was no mention from the complainant of being related to the visitor who had sworn at them.

This is a good example of why hearsay evidence is problematic. We could not talk to the complainant or look at photos or listen to a recording, so it is difficult to test what happened.

The tenant said he could not recall incidents involving any of the described vehicles.

My decision is that the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy me that any of the alleged separate occasions of anti-social behaviour described in this notice most probably occurred. Fourth alleged occasion of anti-social behaviour: notice dated 16/02/2026

A fourth notice of anti-social behaviour was sent to the tenant by the landlord.

It says:

The landlord supplied a photograph showing a blue vehicle parked partly on a footpath and partly on the lane. The landlord’s schedule of exhibits states this photo relates to the incident on 11 February 2026 at approximately 6:45pm as described in the written notice dated 16/02/2026.

This alleged incident was not discussed in the hearing because I had already decided that the landlord had not proven there had been three separate occasions of anti-social behaviour. Decision on s55A RTA anti-social behaviour

In summary, the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour under section 55A RTA is dismissed. There was insufficient evidence to satisfy me that three separate occasions of the alleged behaviour occurred within a 90-day period.

I explained to the parties that I understand that neighbours who complain may want to remain anonymous. The problem is that if they are anonymous, and their complaints and photos are not provided, then there is no way for the tenant or the Tribunal to test what they are saying.

I also note that if a landlord is applying to terminate a tenancy under section 55A RTA, it must have given the tenant, in writing, the specific information listed in that section (see above at 14b).

The reason for the requirements is so the tenant knows exactly what they are being accused of doing.

This is about what is sometimes called “natural justice” which says that everyone should have a fair chance to know what they are alleged to have done wrong. This is the only way someone can then have a fair chance to give their side of things.

If I am accused of doing something but no one tells me what exactly that is, or on what day, where, and approximately when I am alleged to have done it, then I cannot give an explanation.

The requirements in s55A RTA also include advising the tenant that they can apply to the Tribunal to challenge the notice. The purpose of this is also about natural justice. Everyone has the right to have a fair chance to explain their side of things to a decision-maker and to give any evidence that supports their view.

The letter or notice given to a tenant does not have to have a special title or use the words “breach notice”, or “anti-social behaviour notice”. There is no specific form that must be used. What is important is that the tenant is given written notice of all the required information listed in s55A(2) RTA. Could the Tribunal terminate the tenancy because of a tenant breach under section 56 RTA even though the landlord did not specifically mention this section in the hearing?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy if an application is made under s56 RTA; see that section and 5b above.

The landlord did select the option to apply under s56 in the application form but did not specifically address section 56 RTA in its submissions. It focused instead on its three “anti-social behaviour” notices (s55A RTA).

Section 56 RTA also has certain requirements. If the alleged breach is something that can be remedied, the landlord must give the tenant a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring them to remedy the breach within a reasonable period (of not less than 14 days). If the breach is not something that can be remedied, the landlord does not have to give the notice. Presumably this is because there is no point giving the tenant a notice if nothing can be done to remedy the breach.

I did consider s56 RTA when I made my oral decision. It seemed fair to me to do so because the landlord had included it in its application, it was included in the notice of hearing sent to the tenant, and because some of the letters and notices sent by the landlord to the tenant said they were giving the tenant an opportunity to remedy the alleged breaches (see the letters dated 16/10/25 and 24/10/25).

My decision is to dismiss the application to terminate the tenancy pursuant to s56 RTA because:- a. The landlord did not satisfy me that the tenant has breached any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement or of the RTA. b. There was only one piece of direct evidence provided by the landlord which was the photo of the blue car parked partly on the footpath and partly on the lane. There was no evidence to link this car with the tenant or with someone he was responsible for. c. Even if the blue car had been linked to the tenant, I would not have terminated the tenancy because of one proven instance of parking in breach of the tenancy agreement. It is not a breach “of such a nature or extent” that means it would be unfair (inequitable) to refuse to terminate the tenancy; s56 RTA.

I mention another important feature of the evidence and the hearing.

The landlord included in evidence a NZ Police record of callouts to the tenancy address over a period of 12 months. This shows there have been 12 callouts for service from the first on 5 January 2025 up to the last on 19 October 2025.

The landlord told me this shows there have been several incidents causing disturbance and distress. When I asked more about this, the landlord confirmed it has emails from complainants about the police attendances but has not based this application on those complaints and has not sent letters or notices to the tenant about them.

I cannot make a decision about incidents that are not included in this application and about which there is no direct evidence. Suppression of names

The landlord has not been successful in the application and there is no reason to suppress its name. 1

The allegations have not been proven so I suppress the tenant’s name. 2

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438271 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5438271 — 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

What is the alleged breach or anti-social behaviour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

What is the alleged breach or anti-social behaviour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions