What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5462731 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord application is dismissed, subject to [2] below.

How much money was awarded in case 5462731?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5462731?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5462731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13603797-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5462731 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord application is dismissed, subject to [2] below.

How much money was awarded in case 5462731?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5462731?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5462731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13603797-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 478 West Coast Road, Glen Eden, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5462731 — 14-day notice

Order

The landlord application is dismissed, subject to [2] below.
This matter is determined as indicated by the order above, but Barfoot & Thompson Limited is granted a period of 32 days from the date of this order within which if there are any instances of anti-social behaviour they can request that the application be brought back before to the Tribunal with new evidence in respect of any such event and the matter will be re-opened.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on two grounds, sections 55A and 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA): First ground for termination
Termination of the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
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 have taken into account the limited evidence and submissions from the parties.
The landlord has not provided three written notices, nor provided evidence to support the two notices served were justified.
There are no grounds for termination under s55A RTA. Second ground for termination
The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
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 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.
The landlord claimed the tenant has breached their obligations by permitting others at the premises to carry out anti-social behaviour. This resulted in a breach notice being served on the tenant on 12 February 2026.
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. This was done. The landlord must then establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
This has not been evidenced as at today but the landlord spoke of a recently obtained police report of callouts to the property. Even if presented before the hearing today, some confirmation of the validity of any callout would be reasonably expected. Response alone would unlikely be considered sufficient to justify termination.
I do not consider grounds for termination under s 56 RTA have been evidenced today.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: i. The history of the tenancy. ii. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. iii. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. iv. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. v. The conduct of the landlord. vi. The gravity of the breach. vii. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The landlord advised there have been no reported anti-social behaviour issues since March 2026. Further, the tenancy will end on 22 June 2026 via landlord notice to terminate.
Even if I am wrong in determining a lack of evidence to justify a termination, a consideration of the factors above would conclude that at this time it would be inequitable to terminate the tenancy.
Given the past events, and concerns of the landlord for neighbours during the final stage of this tenancy, despite recent behaviours not predicting such, I have provided for this matter to be reopened and return to me if there are any further anti-social behaviours reported and evidenced.

Order

The landlord application is dismissed, subject to [2] below.
This matter is determined as indicated by the order above, but Barfoot & Thompson Limited is granted a period of 32 days from the date of this order within which if there are any instances of anti-social behaviour they can request that the application be brought back before to the Tribunal with new evidence in respect of any such event and the matter will be re-opened.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on two grounds, sections 55A and 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA): First ground for termination
Termination of the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
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 have taken into account the limited evidence and submissions from the parties.
The landlord has not provided three written notices, nor provided evidence to support the two notices served were justified.
There are no grounds for termination under s55A RTA. Second ground for termination
The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
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 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.
The landlord claimed the tenant has breached their obligations by permitting others at the premises to carry out anti-social behaviour. This resulted in a breach notice being served on the tenant on 12 February 2026.
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. This was done. The landlord must then establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
This has not been evidenced as at today but the landlord spoke of a recently obtained police report of callouts to the property. Even if presented before the hearing today, some confirmation of the validity of any callout would be reasonably expected. Response alone would unlikely be considered sufficient to justify termination.
I do not consider grounds for termination under s 56 RTA have been evidenced today.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: i. The history of the tenancy. ii. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. iii. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. iv. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. v. The conduct of the landlord. vi. The gravity of the breach. vii. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The landlord advised there have been no reported anti-social behaviour issues since March 2026. Further, the tenancy will end on 22 June 2026 via landlord notice to terminate.
Even if I am wrong in determining a lack of evidence to justify a termination, a consideration of the factors above would conclude that at this time it would be inequitable to terminate the tenancy.
Given the past events, and concerns of the landlord for neighbours during the final stage of this tenancy, despite recent behaviours not predicting such, I have provided for this matter to be reopened and return to me if there are any further anti-social behaviours reported and evidenced.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5462731 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 3, 478 West Coast Road, Glen Eden, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5462731 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 3, 478 West Coast Road, Glen Eden, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions