What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5486910 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 5486910?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5486910?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5486910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13579879-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5486910 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 5486910?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5486910?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5486910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13579879-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5486910 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Wolf Baynes at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated and the landlord is granted possession at 11.59 pm on Monday 11 May 2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant attended the start of the hearing. He asked for an adjournment. He was disruptive and would not let me explain why I would not allow a third adjournment. He would not let me explain the hearing process. I asked security to remove him from the hearing because he wilfully interrupted and misbehaved – see section 102 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). I have read the statements he provided by email before the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The breach is that the tenant has caused interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants and of the neighbours. See section 40(2)(c) RTA.
The questions I have to consider are: • Has the tenant interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the other tenants and neighbours? • Should the tenancy be terminated? • Should I allow suppression? Has the tenant interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the other tenants and neighbours?
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable (very unfair) to refuse to terminate. 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. See section 56(1) RTA.
The landlord said the tenant breached his obligations to those who live in the building and next door by confronting them, harassing them, continuously filming them on his phone, recording them on security cameras, installing cameras that look into bedrooms and a bathroom, shouting at them, and banging and shouting inside his flat.
The landlord served three 14-day notice on the tenant on 24 March, 12 April and 16 April 2026. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
Four witnesses gave evidence at the hearing. I have not named the witnesses in this order, but they all came to the hearing to give evidence in person, and answered my questions.
Two witnesses live in the flat downstairs from the tenant. They have the same landlord. They said the tenant has been confrontational since he moved in. He films them. He shouts at them. He watches them when they use the shared courtyard. He harassed one tenant at the supermarket. These tenants have stopped using the courtyard, text each before approaching the house to see if he is outside, and have started keeping their doors locked, windows closed, and curtains drawn. There have been times when they have stayed with friends rather than risk confrontation. One of the tenants provided a letter from her counsellor which confirms the negative affect on her mental health. These tenants have communicated with the landlord and called the police.
I heard evidence from a neighbour. She lives in the next door house with her family. She said the first issue they had was the tenant smoking cannabis on the steps outside because this blows into her daughter’s bedroom. She described how the tenant has been confrontational and irrational. He shouts at people. He films them using his phone. She is very concerned about him filming the family because his three security cameras are often directed at their house and garden. She is concerned because he seems to be getting more aggressive and more agitated. She said her children have stopped using the garden and are frightened of the tenant. She has been in contact with the police.
The fourth witness lives in a flat in the same building as the tenant. He has the same landlord. This witness said the tenant has filmed him and his friends using the picnic table out the back. The witness said the tenant yells at him and his flatmate. He also said that the tenant is irrational and seems unstable.
The witnesses were all very open about their experiences and I found their evidence to be credible. The witness evidence corroborates the landlord’s application to end the tenancy. I have not heard any evidence from the tenant. It seems most likely to me the tenant has interfered with the peace comfort and privacy of the people living around him and breached his obligations under the RTA.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The District Court, in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, considered section 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy. These are: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
History – this tenancy started at the end of October 2025 and there were issues in December, February, March and April. The police have been called and the landlord has been contacted many times.
Warnings – the landlord has tried to engage with the tenant. He has issued three 14 day notices. The tenant continues to behave in a way that intimidates and frightens his neighbours.
Likely to comply – given the level of involvement by the landlord and the police it seems unlikely the tenant will comply with his obligations in the future. The observation by more than one witness that his behaviour is getting worse is worrying.
Deliberate breach – it is hard to say if the breach is inadvertent, but it seems most likely to me the tenant understands the complaints against him and his behaviour has not changed.
Landlord’s conduct – the documents and the submissions suggest the landlord has acted reasonably.
Gravity – the breach is serious and there has been a significant impact on the neighbours.
Proportionate response - I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The tenancy ends tonight because there are safety concerns. Suppression
The landlord has made an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The landlord’s name is suppressed because he is the most successful party. The witnesses have not been named in the order and I have suppressed the tenancy address. The tenant’s name will be published because there is public interest when tenant’s breach the RTA.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Wolf Baynes at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated and the landlord is granted possession at 11.59 pm on Monday 11 May 2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant attended the start of the hearing. He asked for an adjournment. He was disruptive and would not let me explain why I would not allow a third adjournment. He would not let me explain the hearing process. I asked security to remove him from the hearing because he wilfully interrupted and misbehaved – see section 102 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). I have read the statements he provided by email before the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The breach is that the tenant has caused interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants and of the neighbours. See section 40(2)(c) RTA.
The questions I have to consider are: • Has the tenant interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the other tenants and neighbours? • Should the tenancy be terminated? • Should I allow suppression? Has the tenant interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the other tenants and neighbours?
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable (very unfair) to refuse to terminate. 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. See section 56(1) RTA.
The landlord said the tenant breached his obligations to those who live in the building and next door by confronting them, harassing them, continuously filming them on his phone, recording them on security cameras, installing cameras that look into bedrooms and a bathroom, shouting at them, and banging and shouting inside his flat.
The landlord served three 14-day notice on the tenant on 24 March, 12 April and 16 April 2026. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
Four witnesses gave evidence at the hearing. I have not named the witnesses in this order, but they all came to the hearing to give evidence in person, and answered my questions.
Two witnesses live in the flat downstairs from the tenant. They have the same landlord. They said the tenant has been confrontational since he moved in. He films them. He shouts at them. He watches them when they use the shared courtyard. He harassed one tenant at the supermarket. These tenants have stopped using the courtyard, text each before approaching the house to see if he is outside, and have started keeping their doors locked, windows closed, and curtains drawn. There have been times when they have stayed with friends rather than risk confrontation. One of the tenants provided a letter from her counsellor which confirms the negative affect on her mental health. These tenants have communicated with the landlord and called the police.
I heard evidence from a neighbour. She lives in the next door house with her family. She said the first issue they had was the tenant smoking cannabis on the steps outside because this blows into her daughter’s bedroom. She described how the tenant has been confrontational and irrational. He shouts at people. He films them using his phone. She is very concerned about him filming the family because his three security cameras are often directed at their house and garden. She is concerned because he seems to be getting more aggressive and more agitated. She said her children have stopped using the garden and are frightened of the tenant. She has been in contact with the police.
The fourth witness lives in a flat in the same building as the tenant. He has the same landlord. This witness said the tenant has filmed him and his friends using the picnic table out the back. The witness said the tenant yells at him and his flatmate. He also said that the tenant is irrational and seems unstable.
The witnesses were all very open about their experiences and I found their evidence to be credible. The witness evidence corroborates the landlord’s application to end the tenancy. I have not heard any evidence from the tenant. It seems most likely to me the tenant has interfered with the peace comfort and privacy of the people living around him and breached his obligations under the RTA.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The District Court, in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, considered section 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy. These are: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
History – this tenancy started at the end of October 2025 and there were issues in December, February, March and April. The police have been called and the landlord has been contacted many times.
Warnings – the landlord has tried to engage with the tenant. He has issued three 14 day notices. The tenant continues to behave in a way that intimidates and frightens his neighbours.
Likely to comply – given the level of involvement by the landlord and the police it seems unlikely the tenant will comply with his obligations in the future. The observation by more than one witness that his behaviour is getting worse is worrying.
Deliberate breach – it is hard to say if the breach is inadvertent, but it seems most likely to me the tenant understands the complaints against him and his behaviour has not changed.
Landlord’s conduct – the documents and the submissions suggest the landlord has acted reasonably.
Gravity – the breach is serious and there has been a significant impact on the neighbours.
Proportionate response - I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The tenancy ends tonight because there are safety concerns. Suppression
The landlord has made an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The landlord’s name is suppressed because he is the most successful party. The witnesses have not been named in the order and I have suppressed the tenancy address. The tenant’s name will be published because there is public interest when tenant’s breach the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5486910 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5486910 — 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