Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5487759 — Harassment
Decided 1 May 2026 · Published 1 May 2026 · Application 5487759
- 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
G Barnett
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 application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Mr Fox appeared for the landlord by video. There was no appearance by the tenant and the matter proceeded in their absence.
- The landlord is seeking to end the tenancy because of anti-social behaviour.
- The tenancy commenced on 16 March 2026 and is periodic.
- The landlord has provided three notices served on the tenant, dated 8 April 2026, 9 April 2026, and 13 April 2026.
- The landlord has also provided the tenancy agreement, short CCTV videos showing behaviour at the property that they claim is anti-social and has been reported to Police, and a complaint form from another neighbour. The complaint form has been redacted to remove the neighbour’s name and address, and it is unsigned. Law
- Section 55A of the Act states: 55A Termination for anti-social behaviour (1) A landlord under a periodic tenancy may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the ground of anti-social behaviour. (2) The Tribunal must (subject to subsection (3)) make the order if 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 (other than the landlord or a person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority), 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 (see sections 77(1) and 78(1)(a) regarding the Tribunal); and (c) the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice. (3) However, the Tribunal must not make the order if satisfied that— (a) doing so would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred, or the notices were given; or (b) in making the application, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy (unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the purported exercise or the complaint was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in making the application). (4) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (2), the Tribunal must not take into account the impact that terminating the tenancy would have on the tenant. (5) In subsection (2)(a), if a tenant is in the premises at the same time as another person (other than the landlord or a person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority), the tenant is presumed to have permitted the person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that they took all reasonable steps to prevent the person from entering the premises or to eject the person from the premises. (6) If a tenant makes an application to the Tribunal challenging a notice given under subsection (2)(b), it is for the landlord to prove that anti-social behaviour was engaged in as described in subsection (2)(a) and that the notice met the requirements of subsection (2)(b). (7) In this section, anti-social behaviour means— (a) harassment; or (b) any other act or omission (whether intentional or not), if the act or omission reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor.]
- To succeed with an application to end a tenancy for anti-social behaviour, each notice must meet all the requirements in section 55A(2)(b)(i) to (iv).
- These requirements are conjunctive, meaning every one of them must be met for the notice to be valid. Analysis and decision
- All of the notices are invalid.
- The notice issued on 8 April 2026 does not provide the date or time of the alleged anti-social behaviour and does not set out the tenant’s right to challenge the notice. The notice issued on 9 April 2026 also does not provide the date or time of the alleged anti-social behaviour and does not set out the tenant’s right to challenge the notice. The notice issued on 13 April 2026 fails to advise the tenant that they may challenge the notice.
- The application is dismissed.
- After the hearing had ended the Tribunal was advised by the Tribunal Registrar that an attempt had been made by the tenant to join the hearing.
- Although the tenant has avoided termination this time, their tenancy may still be at risk if the behaviour continues. The Tribunal reminds the tenant that the landlord must ensure all other nearby tenants enjoy reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. The Tribunal also warns the tenant that they are responsible for the actions of anyone at the property with their permission. Name suppression
- Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
- Section 95A (4) of the Act provides the Tribunal, on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, may order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
- The tenant has been wholly successful and the Tribunal orders suppression of their name and the address of the tenancy.