What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5453148?

The tribunal order states: The application for possession pursuant to a 48-hour notice to terminate the

How much money was awarded in case 5453148?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5453148?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5453148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13306015-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5453148?

The tribunal order states: The application for possession pursuant to a 48-hour notice to terminate the

How much money was awarded in case 5453148?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5453148?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5453148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13306015-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room B, 38 38 Middleton Road, Upper Riccarton, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5453148 — Harassment

Order

The application for possession pursuant to a 48-hour notice to terminate the tenancy of Reuben Kimber served on 22 February 2026 is dismissed. The Notice of Termination is set aside.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted remotely.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for a possession order following the serving of 48-hour notice of termination issued under S.66U(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 on 22 February 2026. The tenant remains in possession. The landlord also seeks termination under the provisions for anti-social behaviour by the tenant.
The tenant disputes the grounds on which the 48-hour notice as based and submits it should be set aside. .
The boarding house tenancy commenced on 3 December 2025.
Section 66U(1)(a) states: The landlord of a boarding house may terminate a boarding house tenancy— immediately, if the tenant has— (i)caused, or threatened to cause, serious damage to the premises; or (ii)endangered, or threatened to endanger, people or property; or (iii)caused, or threatened to cause, serious disruption to other tenants; 18 December 2025
On 18 December 2025 they landlord wrote to the tenant regarding an incident recorded on the property’s CCTV system that day which showed equipment commonly associated with indoor plant cultivation being collected from the driveway and placed into the tenant’s vehicle. The landlord stated that any illegal activity including the cultivation, preparation or storage of prohibited substances or related equipment is prohibited under the boarding house agreement and New Zealand law. She sought confirmation by 19 December that no illegal activity had occurred or will occur and no prohibited substances or materials are stored anywhere on the property.
That day the tenant responded that the equipment was a tent and a Christmas present and that he had no intention of using it. It would be in his car until Christmas Day if that was OK with the landlord. She responded that however the item was described or its intended use, such items could not be stored on the property including in vehicles parked on the premises. This applied even if an item was unused or temporarily stored and asked that the property be removed entirely which the tenant confirmed shortly after that it had.
In oral evidence they landlord stated that she was alerted to the transfer of this item by another boarding house tenant who was hiding in the shadows. She had no knowledge of what this was likely to be but that tenant explained to her it was equipment commonly associated with indoor plant cultivation.
The tenant stated the person who came was his father who had a tent for him from elsewhere for Xmas and he was simply transferring it to the tenant’s car.
The landlord relied on this incident is one of the grounds for serving the 48 hours’ notice.
I find there is no basis for the landlord to reach the conclusion she did, on the basis of a another tenant’s comments that the tent was commonly used for cultivation of cannabis, nor was there any evidence for the landlord to conclude that the tenant may be undertaking illegal activity or storing prohibited substances 1 January 2026
On 1 January the landlord emailed the tenant regarding a complaint she had received about his contact with another tenant in shared areas of the property. It had been reported that there had been repeated and unwanted attempts to engage another tenant in communication including but not limited to standing I shared walkways or doorways, making verbal comments and loitering outside their room. It stated that he had previously been asked directly by this tenant not to communicate with them. The landlord said effective immediately the tenant was directed to cease all forms of communication or interaction with this particular tenant and to keep all interactions strictly neutral and incidental only. Failure to comply with this direction may result in further action being taken.
In response the tenant said that he had previously only knockedon 3 doors of other boarders to deliver Christmas presents and any other communication he had with tenants was not intimidatory.
The landlord had previously stated that the boarding house had 38 boarders and it is inevitable that this number of people living in close proximity are inevitably going to cross each other’s paths at various times and while these interactions should be respectful it is extremely difficult to issue a direction that one boarder will not engage with any other particular boarder.
I find that this evidence is not sufficient to support the ground for a 48 hour notice that the tenant has caused, or threatened to cause, serious disruption to other tenants. 22 February 2026
The landlord presented a timeline for an incident on 22 February . At 00.31 The tenant returned to the property, got out of his car and walked to the front of the house and this was viewed on driveway camera footage.
Three other boarders were in the front BBQ area and the tenant joined them. There is no camera surveillance in this area. Two of the boarders provided witness statements about what happened on that evening. The third tenant refused to give a statement initially and has since left the tenancy. He provided a witness statement prior to the hearing but the landlord chose not to disclose that.
The tenant asked one of the other boarders to play a wrist game for money which he lost. He was asked to pay the money and the tenant ”mouthed off’ at the 2 boaarders. One of them became provoked and attempted to punch the tenant. The other boarder intervened telling the tenant to go to bed and they pushed him towards his room. There was a driveway camera and the Tribunal viewed the boarders pushing the tenant towards his room around 1.05am.
The tenant provided a different version of the events of that night and while the time he stated the events occurred was different I do not find this to be material. There is no dispute that the events took place in the early hours of the morning. The tenant said he returned home, heard loud music and went to challenge two of their boarders and was attacked. In oral evidence he confirmed that he did play wrist games with the boarders.
I find there is no evidence that the tenant was attacked there is no camera footage available of this area and one of the boarders who supposedly was going to verify his claim did not give a statement, except recently and the landlord chose not to disclose that.
From the other boarder’s admission there was an altercation in the BBQ area where one of the boarders attempted to punch the tenant and then there is footage verifying that they attempted to push him towards his room.
I find the record and evidence of the event that took place on 22 February was not sufficient to meet the ground for a 48-hour notice being endangering, or threatening to endanger, people or property.
For clarity the main basis of the landlord’s application was a possession order based on the 48 hour notice that was served on 22 February 2026 and my consideration is whether the grounds for giving that notice where justified. While two further incidents have been outlined following this date these did not form part of my considerations.
In light of my conclusions above I find that there was no basis for giving the 48- hour notice and it is set aside. Anti-social behaviour
The landlord also seeks to terminate the tenancy on the basis of anti-social behaviour.
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 notices that the landlord served on 18th December 2025, 1 January 2026 and 22 February 2626 do not meet the criteria required for a consideration of this claim and it is therefore dismissed.

Order

The application for possession pursuant to a 48-hour notice to terminate the tenancy of Reuben Kimber served on 22 February 2026 is dismissed. The Notice of Termination is set aside.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted remotely.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for a possession order following the serving of 48-hour notice of termination issued under S.66U(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 on 22 February 2026. The tenant remains in possession. The landlord also seeks termination under the provisions for anti-social behaviour by the tenant.
The tenant disputes the grounds on which the 48-hour notice as based and submits it should be set aside. .
The boarding house tenancy commenced on 3 December 2025.
Section 66U(1)(a) states: The landlord of a boarding house may terminate a boarding house tenancy— immediately, if the tenant has— (i)caused, or threatened to cause, serious damage to the premises; or (ii)endangered, or threatened to endanger, people or property; or (iii)caused, or threatened to cause, serious disruption to other tenants; 18 December 2025
On 18 December 2025 they landlord wrote to the tenant regarding an incident recorded on the property’s CCTV system that day which showed equipment commonly associated with indoor plant cultivation being collected from the driveway and placed into the tenant’s vehicle. The landlord stated that any illegal activity including the cultivation, preparation or storage of prohibited substances or related equipment is prohibited under the boarding house agreement and New Zealand law. She sought confirmation by 19 December that no illegal activity had occurred or will occur and no prohibited substances or materials are stored anywhere on the property.
That day the tenant responded that the equipment was a tent and a Christmas present and that he had no intention of using it. It would be in his car until Christmas Day if that was OK with the landlord. She responded that however the item was described or its intended use, such items could not be stored on the property including in vehicles parked on the premises. This applied even if an item was unused or temporarily stored and asked that the property be removed entirely which the tenant confirmed shortly after that it had.
In oral evidence they landlord stated that she was alerted to the transfer of this item by another boarding house tenant who was hiding in the shadows. She had no knowledge of what this was likely to be but that tenant explained to her it was equipment commonly associated with indoor plant cultivation.
The tenant stated the person who came was his father who had a tent for him from elsewhere for Xmas and he was simply transferring it to the tenant’s car.
The landlord relied on this incident is one of the grounds for serving the 48 hours’ notice.
I find there is no basis for the landlord to reach the conclusion she did, on the basis of a another tenant’s comments that the tent was commonly used for cultivation of cannabis, nor was there any evidence for the landlord to conclude that the tenant may be undertaking illegal activity or storing prohibited substances 1 January 2026
On 1 January the landlord emailed the tenant regarding a complaint she had received about his contact with another tenant in shared areas of the property. It had been reported that there had been repeated and unwanted attempts to engage another tenant in communication including but not limited to standing I shared walkways or doorways, making verbal comments and loitering outside their room. It stated that he had previously been asked directly by this tenant not to communicate with them. The landlord said effective immediately the tenant was directed to cease all forms of communication or interaction with this particular tenant and to keep all interactions strictly neutral and incidental only. Failure to comply with this direction may result in further action being taken.
In response the tenant said that he had previously only knockedon 3 doors of other boarders to deliver Christmas presents and any other communication he had with tenants was not intimidatory.
The landlord had previously stated that the boarding house had 38 boarders and it is inevitable that this number of people living in close proximity are inevitably going to cross each other’s paths at various times and while these interactions should be respectful it is extremely difficult to issue a direction that one boarder will not engage with any other particular boarder.
I find that this evidence is not sufficient to support the ground for a 48 hour notice that the tenant has caused, or threatened to cause, serious disruption to other tenants. 22 February 2026
The landlord presented a timeline for an incident on 22 February . At 00.31 The tenant returned to the property, got out of his car and walked to the front of the house and this was viewed on driveway camera footage.
Three other boarders were in the front BBQ area and the tenant joined them. There is no camera surveillance in this area. Two of the boarders provided witness statements about what happened on that evening. The third tenant refused to give a statement initially and has since left the tenancy. He provided a witness statement prior to the hearing but the landlord chose not to disclose that.
The tenant asked one of the other boarders to play a wrist game for money which he lost. He was asked to pay the money and the tenant ”mouthed off’ at the 2 boaarders. One of them became provoked and attempted to punch the tenant. The other boarder intervened telling the tenant to go to bed and they pushed him towards his room. There was a driveway camera and the Tribunal viewed the boarders pushing the tenant towards his room around 1.05am.
The tenant provided a different version of the events of that night and while the time he stated the events occurred was different I do not find this to be material. There is no dispute that the events took place in the early hours of the morning. The tenant said he returned home, heard loud music and went to challenge two of their boarders and was attacked. In oral evidence he confirmed that he did play wrist games with the boarders.
I find there is no evidence that the tenant was attacked there is no camera footage available of this area and one of the boarders who supposedly was going to verify his claim did not give a statement, except recently and the landlord chose not to disclose that.
From the other boarder’s admission there was an altercation in the BBQ area where one of the boarders attempted to punch the tenant and then there is footage verifying that they attempted to push him towards his room.
I find the record and evidence of the event that took place on 22 February was not sufficient to meet the ground for a 48-hour notice being endangering, or threatening to endanger, people or property.
For clarity the main basis of the landlord’s application was a possession order based on the 48 hour notice that was served on 22 February 2026 and my consideration is whether the grounds for giving that notice where justified. While two further incidents have been outlined following this date these did not form part of my considerations.
In light of my conclusions above I find that there was no basis for giving the 48- hour notice and it is set aside. Anti-social behaviour
The landlord also seeks to terminate the tenancy on the basis of anti-social behaviour.
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 notices that the landlord served on 18th December 2025, 1 January 2026 and 22 February 2626 do not meet the criteria required for a consideration of this claim and it is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5453148 — Harassment at Room B, 38 38 Middleton Road, Upper Riccarton,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5453148 — Harassment at Room B, 38 38 Middleton Road, Upper Riccarton,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions