How much money was awarded in case 5466884?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5466884?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5466884?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13352700-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5466884?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5466884?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5466884?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13352700-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5466884 — 14-day notice

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5466884 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name, identifying details including the address of the tenancy and all witness details.
The tenancy of Silena Helen Elizabeth Morehu at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
Silena Helen Elizabeth Morehu must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.
Leave is granted for the possession order to be enforced immediately pursuant to section 138(1)(b) of the District Court Act 2016 and section 106(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was an in-person hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, has: a) on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period engaged of anti-social behaviour and has been given a notice relating to each occasion under section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), b) breached her obligation under section 40(2)(c) RTA by causing or permitting interference with the reasonable, peace, or privacy of the landlord’s other tenants. See section 56(1).

Should the tenancy be terminated for three breaches of antisocial behaviour?

Section 55A RTA sets out that subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating a periodic tenancy 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.
Antisocial behaviour is defined in s 55A(7) as being harassment or “any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor”.
However in this instance the Tribunal is not able to consider the landlord’s application for termination under s 55A as the tenancy is a fixed term tenancy. Parliament has determined that the provisions of s 55A only apply to periodic tenancies. Has the tenant breached her obligation not to cause interference with the peace, comfort and privacy of the landlord’s other tenants under section 40(2)(c)?
Under section 40(2)(c) RTA a tenant has an obligation not to cause any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or any other person living in the neighbourhood.
The landlord claims the quiet enjoyment 1 of other persons living in the neighbourhood.
The tenancy premises is a three bedroomed house with a separate garage. The tenant lives in the house with her partner and children.
The landlord provided a written statement signed by the occupant/s from 8 separate houses in the immediate vicinity of the tenancy premises. The statement was written by the neighbours and states: “Neighbouring residents have experienced ongoing disturbances and concerns relating to activities at [the address of the tenancy]. These issues have had a noticeable impact on the surrounding neighbourhood and the quiet enjoyment of nearby properties”.
The statement then goes on to the list the following concerns/behaviours associated with the tenant and her partner: •Noise control, frequent and excessive dog barking including early morning and late evening hours. Intentional loud banging on their garage doors and windows late at night and early hours of the morning. •Animal abuse, many concerns raised through SPCA regarding treatment of their animals. Animals have just being uplifted by police today [10 March 2026].... To which they responded by aggressively going around to neighbouring homes banging on doors and throwing objects at our windows asking for information about who called SPCA on them. •Aggressive behaviour, frequent staring and intimidating behaviour directed towards neighbours. Aggressively staring directly into other homes from their backyard deck or front windows for frequent and prolonged periods. Aggressively pointing, loud yelling, door/window/garage banging and angry confrontation anytime relevant complaint services have been called, which includes going into neighbours properties uninvited, pointing cameras at neighbouring properties, aggressive hand gestures, throwing out gang signs, yelling, smashing /breaking and banging items loudly within their home/garage, items thrown at neighbours houses/windows and threats made from [the tenant] saying her partner “is a dangerous man” and to “be careful”. •Privacy concerns, cutting down trees and bushes that were previously natural privacy screens... this has allowed access for them to view into surrounding property neighbour properties and has contributed towards 1 Interfering with a tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy amounts to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. the prolonged, aggressive and ongoing staring issues we face. Going into neighbouring property uninvited with aggressive intentions.
The neighbour (“[Neighbour 1]”) who organised for the written statement to be written and signed gave evidence at the hearing. [Neighbour 1] described their personal experience of the behaviours recorded in the signed statement and the affect, particularly of the actions of the tenant’s partner’s behaviours on [Neighbour 1]. [Neighbour 1] said the ‘banging’ sounded like objects being thrown against the walls and occurs in the garage and the house. [Neighbour 1] said the metal garage door was often hit continually for a long period. [Neighbour 1] said the banging and yelling, that accompanied the banging, often occurred late at night and in the early hours of the morning. [Neighbour 1] said the last incident occurred at around 4.30am on the day before the hearing.
[Neighbour 1] said the effect of the behaviours has been so bad that they have strongly considered that they would have to sell their house and move away.
Emails from another neighbour (“[Neighbour 2]”) to the landlord concerning the tenant and her partner’s behaviour were also presented . They record: a. [Neighbour 2] contacted the landlord for the first time 4 days after the tenancy that the tenant and/or her partner were abusing their dog. b. [Neighbour 2] has emailed the landlord several times regarding being woken by the tenant’s partner making loud noises at about 5.00am regularly; that the dog chain makes a loud noise from running over tin (the gate it is attached to) throughout the night, every night; that the tenant’s partner uses intimidating behaviour to [Neighbour 2] regularly; that the behaviour is ongoing, frightening, overwhelming and includes threats of violence.
The landlord confirmed they had received numerous complaints from neighbouring occupants about the tenant’s and her partner’s behaviours.
After considering the evidence I find that the tenant and her partner have breached the neighbours’ peace, comfort and privacy in their use of the premises. Most of the behaviour complained of was that of the tenant’s partner, who lives at the property with the tenant. Section 41(1) RTA provides that the tenant is responsible for anything done by anyone who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act constitutes a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.
The tenant’s breach of s 40(2) is also a breach of clause 20 of the tenancy agreement which requires the tenant “to keep noise to a reasonable level and be considerate of the neighbouring properties, their occupants and other tenants”.

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56?

Section 56(1), RTA allows the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy for breach of any provisions of the tenancy agreement or of the RTA where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
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 of 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 tenant’s breaches have been ongoing and the landlord has warned the tenant of the seriousness of the breaches through 14 day notices issued on 10 February 2026 and 11 March 2026. The behaviour has continued despite the warnings.
The question then becomes whether the breach is of such a nature that it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe), the Court set out a range of factors that are relevant in considering the ‘inequitable’ consideration under s 56. I now consider those factors: a) The history of the tenancy. The landlord has received ongoing complaints from a number of neighbouring tenants from the start of the tenancy. b) Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. The tenant has continued to interfere with the neighbour’s peace, comfort and privacy after being warned. c) Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. From the evidence I find it unlikely that the tenant’s or her partner’s behaviour will change. d) Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. The tenant and her partner have continued to make loud banging noises during the day and night. The neighbours find their behaviour intimidating. It is a significant concern that the tenant and her partner have retaliated after complaints to noise control, the police and the SPCA have been made by various neighbours. I find the behaviour is deliberate. e) The conduct of the landlord. The landlord has acted to bring to the attention of the tenant that her behaviours are interfering with their other neighbouring tenants. f)The gravity of the breach. The neighbouring tenants are fearful of what the tenant will do next. The behaviour of the tenant is affecting her neighbour’s sleep and is disruptive. The tenant’s breach is affecting how the neighbours live and enjoy their properties. g) Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. I find termination is a proportionate response to the tenant’s breach.
For the reasons set out above, I conclude that it would not be inequitable to terminate the tenancy under s 56. The tenancy is terminated.
Suppression: I order suppression of the landlord’s name, all witness details and identifying details including the tenancy address.
Reimbursement of the filing fee: as the landlord has been wholly successful in its claim I must award the filing fee. Possession order may be carried out immediately:
Usually a possession order cannot be enforced, by an eviction being actions, until 48 hours after the order s made. However I grant leave for an order to be enforced immediately. See section 138(1) of the District Court Act 2016. Section 106(2) RTA states that section 138(1) applies as if the reference to a District Court Judge were a reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator.
I make an immediate order because I am concerned about the risk to neighbours and the property if the tenant is allowed to stay at the premises even for a short time.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name, identifying details including the address of the tenancy and all witness details.

The tenancy of Silena Helen Elizabeth Morehu at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.

Silena Helen Elizabeth Morehu must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Leave is granted for the possession order to be enforced immediately pursuant to section 138(1)(b) of the District Court Act 2016 and section 106(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was an in-person hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.

The landlord has applied for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, has: a) on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period engaged of anti-social behaviour and has been given a notice relating to each occasion under section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), b) breached her obligation under section 40(2)(c) RTA by causing or permitting interference with the reasonable, peace, or privacy of the landlord’s other tenants. See section 56(1).

Should the tenancy be terminated for three breaches of antisocial behaviour?

Section 55A RTA sets out that subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating a periodic tenancy 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.

Antisocial behaviour is defined in s 55A(7) as being harassment or “any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor”.

However in this instance the Tribunal is not able to consider the landlord’s application for termination under s 55A as the tenancy is a fixed term tenancy. Parliament has determined that the provisions of s 55A only apply to periodic tenancies. Has the tenant breached her obligation not to cause interference with the peace, comfort and privacy of the landlord’s other tenants under section 40(2)(c)?

Under section 40(2)(c) RTA a tenant has an obligation not to cause any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or any other person living in the neighbourhood.

The landlord claims the quiet enjoyment 1 of other persons living in the neighbourhood.

The tenancy premises is a three bedroomed house with a separate garage. The tenant lives in the house with her partner and children.

The landlord provided a written statement signed by the occupant/s from 8 separate houses in the immediate vicinity of the tenancy premises. The statement was written by the neighbours and states: “Neighbouring residents have experienced ongoing disturbances and concerns relating to activities at [the address of the tenancy]. These issues have had a noticeable impact on the surrounding neighbourhood and the quiet enjoyment of nearby properties”.

The statement then goes on to the list the following concerns/behaviours associated with the tenant and her partner: •Noise control, frequent and excessive dog barking including early morning and late evening hours. Intentional loud banging on their garage doors and windows late at night and early hours of the morning. •Animal abuse, many concerns raised through SPCA regarding treatment of their animals. Animals have just being uplifted by police today [10 March 2026].... To which they responded by aggressively going around to neighbouring homes banging on doors and throwing objects at our windows asking for information about who called SPCA on them. •Aggressive behaviour, frequent staring and intimidating behaviour directed towards neighbours. Aggressively staring directly into other homes from their backyard deck or front windows for frequent and prolonged periods. Aggressively pointing, loud yelling, door/window/garage banging and angry confrontation anytime relevant complaint services have been called, which includes going into neighbours properties uninvited, pointing cameras at neighbouring properties, aggressive hand gestures, throwing out gang signs, yelling, smashing /breaking and banging items loudly within their home/garage, items thrown at neighbours houses/windows and threats made from [the tenant] saying her partner “is a dangerous man” and to “be careful”. •Privacy concerns, cutting down trees and bushes that were previously natural privacy screens... this has allowed access for them to view into surrounding property neighbour properties and has contributed towards 1 Interfering with a tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy amounts to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. the prolonged, aggressive and ongoing staring issues we face. Going into neighbouring property uninvited with aggressive intentions.

The neighbour (“[Neighbour 1]”) who organised for the written statement to be written and signed gave evidence at the hearing. [Neighbour 1] described their personal experience of the behaviours recorded in the signed statement and the affect, particularly of the actions of the tenant’s partner’s behaviours on [Neighbour 1]. [Neighbour 1] said the ‘banging’ sounded like objects being thrown against the walls and occurs in the garage and the house. [Neighbour 1] said the metal garage door was often hit continually for a long period. [Neighbour 1] said the banging and yelling, that accompanied the banging, often occurred late at night and in the early hours of the morning. [Neighbour 1] said the last incident occurred at around 4.30am on the day before the hearing.

[Neighbour 1] said the effect of the behaviours has been so bad that they have strongly considered that they would have to sell their house and move away.

Emails from another neighbour (“[Neighbour 2]”) to the landlord concerning the tenant and her partner’s behaviour were also presented . They record: a. [Neighbour 2] contacted the landlord for the first time 4 days after the tenancy that the tenant and/or her partner were abusing their dog. b. [Neighbour 2] has emailed the landlord several times regarding being woken by the tenant’s partner making loud noises at about 5.00am regularly; that the dog chain makes a loud noise from running over tin (the gate it is attached to) throughout the night, every night; that the tenant’s partner uses intimidating behaviour to [Neighbour 2] regularly; that the behaviour is ongoing, frightening, overwhelming and includes threats of violence.

The landlord confirmed they had received numerous complaints from neighbouring occupants about the tenant’s and her partner’s behaviours.

After considering the evidence I find that the tenant and her partner have breached the neighbours’ peace, comfort and privacy in their use of the premises. Most of the behaviour complained of was that of the tenant’s partner, who lives at the property with the tenant. Section 41(1) RTA provides that the tenant is responsible for anything done by anyone who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act constitutes a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.

The tenant’s breach of s 40(2) is also a breach of clause 20 of the tenancy agreement which requires the tenant “to keep noise to a reasonable level and be considerate of the neighbouring properties, their occupants and other tenants”.

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56?

Section 56(1), RTA allows the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy for breach of any provisions of the tenancy agreement or of the RTA where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.

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 of 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 tenant’s breaches have been ongoing and the landlord has warned the tenant of the seriousness of the breaches through 14 day notices issued on 10 February 2026 and 11 March 2026. The behaviour has continued despite the warnings.

The question then becomes whether the breach is of such a nature that it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy.

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe), the Court set out a range of factors that are relevant in considering the ‘inequitable’ consideration under s 56. I now consider those factors: a) The history of the tenancy. The landlord has received ongoing complaints from a number of neighbouring tenants from the start of the tenancy. b) Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. The tenant has continued to interfere with the neighbour’s peace, comfort and privacy after being warned. c) Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. From the evidence I find it unlikely that the tenant’s or her partner’s behaviour will change. d) Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. The tenant and her partner have continued to make loud banging noises during the day and night. The neighbours find their behaviour intimidating. It is a significant concern that the tenant and her partner have retaliated after complaints to noise control, the police and the SPCA have been made by various neighbours. I find the behaviour is deliberate. e) The conduct of the landlord. The landlord has acted to bring to the attention of the tenant that her behaviours are interfering with their other neighbouring tenants. f)The gravity of the breach. The neighbouring tenants are fearful of what the tenant will do next. The behaviour of the tenant is affecting her neighbour’s sleep and is disruptive. The tenant’s breach is affecting how the neighbours live and enjoy their properties. g) Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. I find termination is a proportionate response to the tenant’s breach.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that it would not be inequitable to terminate the tenancy under s 56. The tenancy is terminated.

Suppression: I order suppression of the landlord’s name, all witness details and identifying details including the tenancy address.

Reimbursement of the filing fee: as the landlord has been wholly successful in its claim I must award the filing fee. Possession order may be carried out immediately:

Usually a possession order cannot be enforced, by an eviction being actions, until 48 hours after the order s made. However I grant leave for an order to be enforced immediately. See section 138(1) of the District Court Act 2016. Section 106(2) RTA states that section 138(1) applies as if the reference to a District Court Judge were a reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator.

I make an immediate order because I am concerned about the risk to neighbours and the property if the tenant is allowed to stay at the premises even for a short time.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5466884 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5466884 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for three breaches of antisocial behaviour?

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for three breaches of antisocial behaviour?

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions