What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5444169 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 5444169?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5444169?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5444169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13204846-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5444169 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 5444169?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5444169?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5444169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13204846-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5444169 — 14-day notice

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 27 February 2026
The premises are on the ground floor of an apartment complex. There are approximately ten apartments on the ground floor including the tenant’s apartment.
The tenancy commenced on 9 January 2026 and is current. It is a periodic tenancy. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
The Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence. The Tribunal may receive any relevant evidence. What is of significance, is the weight to be attached to any evidence. As an example, generally the Tribunal will place more weight on evidence given in person, where the witness is available to be cross examined by the other party, than evidence given by written statement or hearsay evidence where the witness is not available to be cross examined. Application to terminate the tenancy where three Anti-social behaviour notices have been served on 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 is; • First notice - Raised voices, swearing, shouting on Friday 6 February 2026 at approximately 8.45 am. • Second notice – Raised voices, swearing, shouting on Saturday 7 February 2026 at approximately 10.50 am. • Third notice – Raised voices, swearing, shouting and a smashing noise on Monday 9 February 2026, in the morning.
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.
I am satisfied that the events referred to in the notices constitutes anti-social behaviour as defined in the RTA and that the formal requirements for the notices set out ins.55A (2) RTA are met.
Section 55A(3) RTA provides that the Tribunal must not make an order if satisfied that it would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the notices were given.
In Airedale Property Trust v Lawson [2026] NZTT Auckland 4301453 the Tribunal held that notices had been unfairly issued, as two of the notices were issued by the landlord on the same day, albeit that they related to different events of different days. The Tribunal held that; “The purpose of being delivered a notice which expressly sets out the requirements in s.55A(2)(b) is so the tenant has the ability to apply to the Tribunal for orders challenging the notice or to otherwise seek to correct the alleged anti- social behaviour. Otherwise, a landlord could deliver three notices on the same day, for three separate earlier events, all taking place on different days, and the tenant has had no opportunity to correct their behaviour.”
This case takes the issue further, as all three notices were issued to the tenant on the same day. I am of the view that the tenant did not have the effective right to challenge the notices or to correct their behaviour. I therefore find that it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy under s.55A, given that all three of the requests were delivered on the same date. 14 Day breach notices
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 28 January 2026. The issues raised by the landlord were that; • The tenant was keeping an unauthorised pet at the premises. Pets are not allowed under the body corporate rules for the premises which form part of the tenancy agreement. • Using a car park assigned to visitors. • Using the storage facilities for personal storage. • Smoking in the apartment. • Noise including shouting and swearing.
The notice required the tenant to rectify these issues within 14 days (11 February 2026).
The landlord’s evidence was that the issues relating to parking and storage had been rectified and accordingly I am not required to consider them.
The landlord’s evidence as to the presence of a pet came about as a result of complaints from other tenants in the complex which were then passed onto the body corporate and then to the landlord. Essentially, a double hearsay. However, as indicated previously, the Tribunal is entitled to receive all evidence with the issue of weight to be attached to that evidence remaining.
The landlord said that she had been told by the body corporate, who had in turn been told by other tenants, that the tenant had been heard calling for the dog (“Jimmy”) on Monday 23 February 2026.
The tenant’s evidence was that she had been looking after the dog for a friend at the time the notice had been received. The dog had subsequently been returned to the friend. When she was heard to call the dog on 23 February 2026, she was on a video call to the dog’s owner and was trying to attract the dogs attention. The dog having previously been returned to its owner.
The burden of proving the claim is on the landlord. The landlord’s evidence consists of statements made by a tenant to the body corporate and then by the body corporate to the landlord. In those circumstances, I prefer the evidence of the tenant, who was available to be cross examined on the issue by the landlord (but was not).
The landlord’s evidence relating to smoking was that the premises were being sold. A real estate agent visited the premises after 17 February 2026 and said that the apartment smelt of cigarette smoke. The agent was not called to give evidence, nor was any statement provided. No other evidence was provided of the tenant smoking after the expiry of the 14-day period on 11 February 2026. I am not persuaded that the landlord has proven that it is more likely than not that the tenant has smoked in the apartment after 11 February 2026 and the application is dismissed.
The final issue referred to in the notice relates to noise. The 14-day notice refers to noise occurring on 25 January 2026. What evidence of further noise has occurred outside the 14-day notice period, which expired on 11 February 2026?
The sole incident of a noise complaint after 11 February 2026 occurred on Monday 23 February 2026. The landlord says that the body corporate received a complaint from a tenant of a “raised voice, a harsh tone, and repeated use of foul language.” The noise is said to have come from the tenant’s apartment.
The tenant says that these are apartments with a single wall between them. She said that she did not think that the walls were insulated. She asked if the landlord had any evidence of the decibel level during the incident complained of.
The tenant referred to ongoing health issues which result in her finding it difficult to control herself. Whist the Tribunal is sympathetic to that issue, it is not an excuse for behaviour that causes disruption to neighbours.
I find that the tenant has breached her obligation under the breach notice dated 28 January 2026, by failing to keep the volume of any argument or general unhappiness down, so as not to interfere with the quiet enjoyment of other tenants in the complex.
The remaining issue for the Tribunal to decide is under s.56(1)(b) RTA. Where the Tribunal finds that there has been an ongoing breach, is the breach of such a nature or to such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy? In making that decision, I consider the following to be relevant; • The breach was inadvertent and not done with the intention of annoying neighbours. • This has been a relatively brief tenancy. • There is only one proven breach under s.56 RTA relating to noise. • The conduct is obviously annoying to other tenants of the complex but cannot be said to be particularly grave. • I do not consider that termination of the tenancy is a proportionate response to the proven breach.
For those reasons, I do not consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order and no order for termination of the tenancy is made.
The tenant should be under no illusions that any ongoing breach of any nature may well result in the landlord making further applications to the Tribunal. In the event that this were to occur, the landlord may wish to refer this order to any adjudicator considering the claim.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this hearing. Suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 27 February 2026

The premises are on the ground floor of an apartment complex. There are approximately ten apartments on the ground floor including the tenant’s apartment.

The tenancy commenced on 9 January 2026 and is current. It is a periodic tenancy. The burden of proof

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

The Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence. The Tribunal may receive any relevant evidence. What is of significance, is the weight to be attached to any evidence. As an example, generally the Tribunal will place more weight on evidence given in person, where the witness is available to be cross examined by the other party, than evidence given by written statement or hearsay evidence where the witness is not available to be cross examined. Application to terminate the tenancy where three Anti-social behaviour notices have been served on 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 is; • First notice - Raised voices, swearing, shouting on Friday 6 February 2026 at approximately 8.45 am. • Second notice – Raised voices, swearing, shouting on Saturday 7 February 2026 at approximately 10.50 am. • Third notice – Raised voices, swearing, shouting and a smashing noise on Monday 9 February 2026, in the morning.

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.

I am satisfied that the events referred to in the notices constitutes anti-social behaviour as defined in the RTA and that the formal requirements for the notices set out ins.55A (2) RTA are met.

Section 55A(3) RTA provides that the Tribunal must not make an order if satisfied that it would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the notices were given.

In Airedale Property Trust v Lawson [2026] NZTT Auckland 4301453 the Tribunal held that notices had been unfairly issued, as two of the notices were issued by the landlord on the same day, albeit that they related to different events of different days. The Tribunal held that; “The purpose of being delivered a notice which expressly sets out the requirements in s.55A(2)(b) is so the tenant has the ability to apply to the Tribunal for orders challenging the notice or to otherwise seek to correct the alleged anti- social behaviour. Otherwise, a landlord could deliver three notices on the same day, for three separate earlier events, all taking place on different days, and the tenant has had no opportunity to correct their behaviour.”

This case takes the issue further, as all three notices were issued to the tenant on the same day. I am of the view that the tenant did not have the effective right to challenge the notices or to correct their behaviour. I therefore find that it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy under s.55A, given that all three of the requests were delivered on the same date. 14 Day breach notices

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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 landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 28 January 2026. The issues raised by the landlord were that; • The tenant was keeping an unauthorised pet at the premises. Pets are not allowed under the body corporate rules for the premises which form part of the tenancy agreement. • Using a car park assigned to visitors. • Using the storage facilities for personal storage. • Smoking in the apartment. • Noise including shouting and swearing.

The notice required the tenant to rectify these issues within 14 days (11 February 2026).

The landlord’s evidence was that the issues relating to parking and storage had been rectified and accordingly I am not required to consider them.

The landlord’s evidence as to the presence of a pet came about as a result of complaints from other tenants in the complex which were then passed onto the body corporate and then to the landlord. Essentially, a double hearsay. However, as indicated previously, the Tribunal is entitled to receive all evidence with the issue of weight to be attached to that evidence remaining.

The landlord said that she had been told by the body corporate, who had in turn been told by other tenants, that the tenant had been heard calling for the dog (“Jimmy”) on Monday 23 February 2026.

The tenant’s evidence was that she had been looking after the dog for a friend at the time the notice had been received. The dog had subsequently been returned to the friend. When she was heard to call the dog on 23 February 2026, she was on a video call to the dog’s owner and was trying to attract the dogs attention. The dog having previously been returned to its owner.

The burden of proving the claim is on the landlord. The landlord’s evidence consists of statements made by a tenant to the body corporate and then by the body corporate to the landlord. In those circumstances, I prefer the evidence of the tenant, who was available to be cross examined on the issue by the landlord (but was not).

The landlord’s evidence relating to smoking was that the premises were being sold. A real estate agent visited the premises after 17 February 2026 and said that the apartment smelt of cigarette smoke. The agent was not called to give evidence, nor was any statement provided. No other evidence was provided of the tenant smoking after the expiry of the 14-day period on 11 February 2026. I am not persuaded that the landlord has proven that it is more likely than not that the tenant has smoked in the apartment after 11 February 2026 and the application is dismissed.

The final issue referred to in the notice relates to noise. The 14-day notice refers to noise occurring on 25 January 2026. What evidence of further noise has occurred outside the 14-day notice period, which expired on 11 February 2026?

The sole incident of a noise complaint after 11 February 2026 occurred on Monday 23 February 2026. The landlord says that the body corporate received a complaint from a tenant of a “raised voice, a harsh tone, and repeated use of foul language.” The noise is said to have come from the tenant’s apartment.

The tenant says that these are apartments with a single wall between them. She said that she did not think that the walls were insulated. She asked if the landlord had any evidence of the decibel level during the incident complained of.

The tenant referred to ongoing health issues which result in her finding it difficult to control herself. Whist the Tribunal is sympathetic to that issue, it is not an excuse for behaviour that causes disruption to neighbours.

I find that the tenant has breached her obligation under the breach notice dated 28 January 2026, by failing to keep the volume of any argument or general unhappiness down, so as not to interfere with the quiet enjoyment of other tenants in the complex.

The remaining issue for the Tribunal to decide is under s.56(1)(b) RTA. Where the Tribunal finds that there has been an ongoing breach, is the breach of such a nature or to such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy? In making that decision, I consider the following to be relevant; • The breach was inadvertent and not done with the intention of annoying neighbours. • This has been a relatively brief tenancy. • There is only one proven breach under s.56 RTA relating to noise. • The conduct is obviously annoying to other tenants of the complex but cannot be said to be particularly grave. • I do not consider that termination of the tenancy is a proportionate response to the proven breach.

For those reasons, I do not consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order and no order for termination of the tenancy is made.

The tenant should be under no illusions that any ongoing breach of any nature may well result in the landlord making further applications to the Tribunal. In the event that this were to occur, the landlord may wish to refer this order to any adjudicator considering the claim.

The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this hearing. Suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered.

The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5444169 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5444169 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions