Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5458850 — Harassment
Decided 30 Apr 2026 · Published 30 Apr 2026 · Application 5458850
- Harassment
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
M Edison
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Amani Property Management As Agent For Kabila Limited, at midnight on Thursday 16 April 2025.
- [The tenant/s] must pay Amani Property Management As Agent For Kabila Limited $28.00 for the filing fee.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing by telephone on 1 April 2026. Further evidence was received from both parties following the hearing.
- The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour.
- The premises comprise studio units and a majority of the occupants are students. Relevant Law
- Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy pursuant to section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) if it is satisfied that: 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. Analysis
- The anti-social behaviour described in the notices is as follows: • There was loud noise overnight on 12 and 13 February 2026 and Council noise control was called. (I add that an Excessive Noise Direction notice was served at about 1.45am). • There was loud noise and smashing noises during the day on 24 February 2026 continuing each day until 26 February 2026. This was causing other tenants to be scared and unable to sleep, work, or study. • Two other tenants were subjected to verbal aggression from the tenant on 25 February 2026, who shouted at them from her window while they were walking outside.
- Other events and reports include: • A report on 13 February 2026 that the tenant was having severe mental health issues and was screaming sporadically using abusive language. • An email from the building reception on 26 February 2026, reporting that the tenant had been repeatedly screaming and making loud banging noises. When a welfare check was attempted, the tenant responded by screaming loudly. A representative of [Social service] had attempted to visit but was denied entry and the tenant screamed at them. • On 27 February 2026 it was reported that the tenant was throwing things out of her window onto the street outside. • An email from the building reception on 20 March 2026 reported that the tenant had been screaming and making loud banging noises. The person making the report said they were quite frightened and unable to concentrate.
- The tenant provided evidence showing she has recently had eye surgery relating to retinal detachment. The tenant explained that she has low vision and her eye problems have been causing her pain and frustration. She was coping by communicating loudly.
- The tenant said that the noise from her unit was caused by her falling over and crashing into things due to her degraded vision (which she said was 6/30 not 6/9). The tenant suggested that she had a misunderstanding with reception as she didn’t realise people had examinations and the building seemed empty.
- The tenant said that someone was rude to her as they walked by and someone else had heard her response and thought it was directed at them. Her behaviour had been taken the wrong way by a sensitive person. The tenant acknowledged that she told the noise control officer to go away as she was in pain. She also acknowledged that she screams in pain and frustration.
- I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
- The landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Act, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
- The issue is whether the Tribunal must not make a termination order because doing so would be unfair in the circumstances (section 55A(3)(a)).
- Overall, the evidence suggests that the tenant has mental health challenges as well as medical disability. There is an element of unfairness in any termination of a residential tenancy, because the tenant is deprived of a fundamental human right to shelter. That consideration is only amplified here.
- However, the question is whether I am satisfied that termination “would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred or the notices were given.” In my view, there was nothing unfair in the notices being given. The landlord was responding to multiple complaints. Further, any consideration of unfairness has to acknowledge the effect of the tenant’s behaviour on other occupants, which was unprovoked. The tenant’s medical problems are causing pain and frustration, and the tenant needs help and support, but that does not permit repeated anti-social behaviour. I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy.
- I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application (section 55A(3)(b)).
- I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy (section 55A(4)). Filing Fee
- The landlord is award the filing fee because the application has been successful.
- I have granted the tenant name suppression of my own motion. This order contains details of a personal nature and the tenant’s privacy interest is engaged.