What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5488830 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Joanne Kaye Entwistle at [Tenancy address suppressed] is

How much money was awarded in case 5488830?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5488830?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5488830?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13516995-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5488830 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Joanne Kaye Entwistle at [Tenancy address suppressed] is

How much money was awarded in case 5488830?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5488830?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5488830?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13516995-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5488830 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Joanne Kaye Entwistle at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately. I grant leave for this order to be enforced immediately and the 48-hour period in section 138(1)(a) of the District Courts Act 2016 does not apply.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the witnesses’ names and the address of the property.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.
The tenant did not phone into the remote hearing. The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. SECTION 55 A – TERMINATION FOR ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant. Section 55A of the RTA applies and it says: 55ATermination 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, 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 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.
The following notices for antisocial behaviour were served on the tenant:
Notice 1 – Dated 18 February 2026 which relates to an incident on 9 February 2025. The landlord said the tenant was yelling abuse and swearing at the landlord’s staff, mental health staff and tradespeople.
Notice 2- Dated 9 March 2026 (served 10 March 2026) in respect of an incident on 27 February 2026. The landlord said the tenant was yelling at neighbours, threatening to kill the neighbours and her body language was such that it looked like she would hurt someone.
Notice 3 – Dated 30 March 2026 which relates to an incident on 9 March 2026. The landlord said the tenant tipped over the neighbour’s bins and was yelling and swearing at the neighbours.
The application was filed on 15 April 2026.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the landlord, which is set out further below. I have determined that the landlord has established that anti- social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant. The landlord has served notices on the tenant in the format required by the RTA, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
However, my interpretation of section 55A RTA is that each notice must be given after the relevant incident and before the next incident for the notice to count towards the three-notice requirement. This allows the tenant the opportunity to modify their behaviour and takes steps to prevent a reoccurrence of the behaviour or challenge the notice (by way of an application to the Tribunal) before the following notice is given. The third notice was given after the second incident occurred, therefore the tenant did not have the second notice before she engaged in the behaviour set out in the third notice.
The landlord suggested that they acted reasonably promptly in serving the tenant with the notices for anti-social behaviour and submits I should terminate the tenancy despite the sequencing issue in relation to the notices for anti-social behaviour. I consider the landlord has in the circumstances, not served the notices in a sufficiently timely manner in this case. I am dismissing the claim for termination in relation to anti-social behaviour because the notices for anti-social behaviour have not been served in a fair manner to meet the requirements of s 55A RTA. TERMINATION UNDER SECTION 56
I will address the claim for termination under section 56. Given the allegations from the landlord here, the Tribunal could order a termination of the tenancy under section 56 RTA, which is a general termination provision. Section 56 is as follows: 56 Termination for non-payment of rent and other breaches (1) On an application made to it under this section by the landlord or the tenant, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— (a) the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement (including provisions relating to the payment of rent) or of this Act; and (b) in the case of a breach capable of remedy,— (i) the applicant gave to the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given; and (ii) and the other party failed to remedy the default within the required period; and (c) that the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
What this means is that 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. 2 Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord is required to serve a 14-day notice to remedy the breach on the tenant and prove that the tenant has not remedied the breach. 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.
There are two types of obligation on a tenant: positive covenants and negative covenants. Positive covenants are things the tenant is required to do, such as paying rent. Negative covenants are things that a tenant must not do, such as breaching the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours. Breach of a positive covenant can be remedied by requiring the tenant to do the thing they were supposed to do, such as paying the unpaid rent. The situation is not as straightforward with breach of a negative covenant, as it may not be possible to undo the thing the tenant did which they should not have done. In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management 3 , the District Court considered whether breach of s 48(4)(b) RTA (refusal to allow entry) was capable of remedy: ...Section 48(4)(b) imposes a negative obligation on the tenant. Several cases have held that breach of a negative covenant in a tenancy agreement is not capable of remedy in terms of s56(1)(b). the breach irremediably arises when the specified failure occurs. It is not always the case, however, that breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. Whether a negative covenant is capable of remedy will depend on the nature of the breach, and when viewed within the context of s56(1)(b)(i), whether the harm that might be caused by the breach can be effectively remedied within a reasonable period of not less than 14 days. (emphasis added)
It follows that a breach of a negative covenant would be capable of remedy where the effect of the breach can be remedied. Where however the breach, or the harmful effect of the breach, is serious, it may not be capable of remedy. The same may apply where there has been a persistent series of breaches, for example, where a tenant has repeatedly breached the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management 4 the Court also needed to consider the extent of section 56(1)(c), which requires consideration of whether the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be 2 RTA, section 56(1). 3 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 at [46]-[47] 4 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe) at [61]., inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. The Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant, being: a) The history of the tenancy. b) Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c) Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d) Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e) The conduct of the landlord. f) The gravity of the breach. g) Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The issues I need to consider in respect of termination under s 56 of the RTA are: a. Has the tenant breached any obligation to the landlord? 5 b. If the breach is capable of remedy, has the landlord issued a 14-day notice to remedy which the tenant has not complied with 6 c. That the breach was of such significance, that it would be inequitable (unfair) not to terminate the tenancy? 7

HAS THE TENANT BREACHED ANY OBLIGATION TO THE LANDLORD?

Section 40 (2) (c) of the RTA says the tenant shall not cause or permit 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 with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
The landlord says the tenant has breached their obligation to not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants.
Three witnesses gave written and oral evidence, being the neighbours (also KO tenants): [Witness 1] (Ms S), [Witness 2] (Ms T) and [Witness 3] (Ms B). The details of the breaches and the notices are set out below.
On 26 June 2025 the landlord served a notice of breach of the tenancy agreement on a tenant. The landlord said the tenant had been noisy. On 15 December 2025 the landlord served a notice of a breach on the tenant in respect of disruptive behaviour within the neighbourhood that related to the tenant threatening and verbally abusing her neighbour. 5 RTA, 56(1)(a). 6 RTA, s 56(1)(b). 7 RTA, s 56(1)(a).
On 22 January 2026 the landlord served a notice of breach of the tenancy agreement on a tenant. The landlord said the tenant had been noisy and verbally abusive and threatening to her neighbour. A statement was provided from the neighbour, Ms B, in relation to that breach. Ms B also gave oral evidence of the tenant swearing and threatening to kill her. Ms B says the tenant has given her a book about ways to die. Ms B says she recently received abusive cards from the tenant in her letter box.
On 10 February 2026 a neighbour, Ms T complained to the landlord about the tenant swearing, threatening and yelling at her, including telling Ms T she wants to kill her and having her music on full volume during the night and the day.
Ms S, complained to the landlord that on 27 February 2026 the tenant could be heard threatening to kill and murder other tenants. Ms S has had to trespass the tenant from her property. Ms S gave oral evidence at the hearing of the tenant yelling and swearing at other tenants. Ms S says the tenant was telling the other tenants to “fuck off” and threatening to murder them and her and saying they all need to die. Ms S says she did not engage with the tenant.
Ms T also gave oral evidence in relation to this incident and confirmed the tenant came out of her home and was yelling and threatened to kill them.
Ms S gave oral evidence on 9 March 2026 that she went out to check the bins and her rubbish had been thrown over the ground. Ms S had to pick up her rubbish and the tenant came out again and started emptying the bins again and emptied another tenant’s bin. Ms S said the tenant tipped the rubbish all over the road and it was too difficult to pick up. Ms S says she told the Police about this incident.
On 17 March 2026 the landlord received a complaint from a neighbour who said the tenant has been onto her property to take mandarins. The neighbour said she approached the tenant who acknowledged the behaviour and apologise.
On 13 April 2026 the landlord served a notice of breach of the tenancy agreement on the tenant. The landlord said the tenant had been excessively noisy and verbally abusive.
On 2 April 2026 The landlord served a notice of breach of the tenancy agreement on the tenant. The landlord said in that notice that the tenant had been yelling abuse at neighbours and tradesmen as well as writing abusive notes and chalk on the driveway directed at a neighbour.
On 13 April 2026 the landlord served a breach notice on the tenant in relation to the 8 April 2026 for disruptive behaviour including noise coming from her home and disagreements and verbal abuse/threats towards her neighbours.
The three witnesses all gave consistent evidence which reflected the persistent behaviour by the tenant set out in the breach notices. I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of her neighbouring tenants, which is a breach of her obligations.

ARE THE BREACHES CAPABLE OF REMEDY?

Given the nature, frequency and impact of the breaches in respect of the behavior towards the neighboring tenants I consider the breaches are not capable of remedy.
Ms S gave evidence about the significant impact on her own mental health in relation to the tenant’s behavior. Ms B gave evidence that she is unable to take the behavior from the tenant anymore.

INEQUITABLE TO REFUSE TO TERMINATE A TENANCY

Having determined that the tenant has breached her obligations, and the breach is not capable of remedy I will address each factor set out in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management in turn below in considering whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. a) the history of the tenancy: • The tenancy commenced in January 2004. It is therefore a relatively long tenancy. • Ms S said the issues have arisen largely in the last six months. b) whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings: • The tenant has been issued with several warning notices for breaching her obligations but appears unable to prevent the behaviour. The behaviour is persistent and repetitive. c) whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future: • I consider that there is a risk of ongoing non-compliance, given the persistent and serious nature of the breaches. • There is no evidence to suggest she is getting the professional support she needs to address the behaviour. d) whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed: • I consider the breach is most likely deliberate, given the nature of the breaches. e) the conduct of the landlord: • The landlord is a social housing provider. • I am confident the landlord has taken all reasonable steps to sustain this tenancy, however the situation has become untenantable. • I consider that the conduct of the landlord has been appropriate. f) the gravity of the breach: • The breaches are at the high end of the scale of breaches of the tenants’ obligations. • Other neighbouring tenants are worried for their safety. g) whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach: • I consider that termination is a proportionate response to the breaches. • The landlord is a social housing provider and the premises ought to be available for tenants who will not breach their obligations as the tenant has in this case.
The tenancy is terminated.
Section 138 of the District Court Act 2016 holds that normally an order cannot be enforced until 48 hours have expired, unless a “Judge grants leave”. However, section 106(2) of the RTA which relates to enforcement of possession orders, confirms that reference to a ‘Judge’ in section 138(1) applies as if it were reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator. This is a case where it is appropriate that leave be granted for an immediate enforcement of the possession order. There is a real risk to the neighbouring tenants from the tenancy continuing.

FILING FEE

The landlord waived the filing fee

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 8 The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 9
The landlord did not seek name suppression. 8 RTA, s 95A (1). 9 RTA, s 95A (4) and (5)
I have ordered suppression of the witnesses names and the address of the property as this is an identifying detail of the witnesses.

Order

The tenancy of Joanne Kaye Entwistle at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately. I grant leave for this order to be enforced immediately and the 48-hour period in section 138(1)(a) of the District Courts Act 2016 does not apply.

The Tribunal orders suppression of the witnesses’ names and the address of the property.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.

The tenant did not phone into the remote hearing. The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in her absence.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. SECTION 55 A – TERMINATION FOR ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant. Section 55A of the RTA applies and it says: 55ATermination 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, 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 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.

The following notices for antisocial behaviour were served on the tenant:

Notice 1 – Dated 18 February 2026 which relates to an incident on 9 February 2025. The landlord said the tenant was yelling abuse and swearing at the landlord’s staff, mental health staff and tradespeople.

Notice 2- Dated 9 March 2026 (served 10 March 2026) in respect of an incident on 27 February 2026. The landlord said the tenant was yelling at neighbours, threatening to kill the neighbours and her body language was such that it looked like she would hurt someone.

Notice 3 – Dated 30 March 2026 which relates to an incident on 9 March 2026. The landlord said the tenant tipped over the neighbour’s bins and was yelling and swearing at the neighbours.

The application was filed on 15 April 2026.

I have taken into account the evidence presented by the landlord, which is set out further below. I have determined that the landlord has established that anti- social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant. The landlord has served notices on the tenant in the format required by the RTA, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.

However, my interpretation of section 55A RTA is that each notice must be given after the relevant incident and before the next incident for the notice to count towards the three-notice requirement. This allows the tenant the opportunity to modify their behaviour and takes steps to prevent a reoccurrence of the behaviour or challenge the notice (by way of an application to the Tribunal) before the following notice is given. The third notice was given after the second incident occurred, therefore the tenant did not have the second notice before she engaged in the behaviour set out in the third notice.

The landlord suggested that they acted reasonably promptly in serving the tenant with the notices for anti-social behaviour and submits I should terminate the tenancy despite the sequencing issue in relation to the notices for anti-social behaviour. I consider the landlord has in the circumstances, not served the notices in a sufficiently timely manner in this case. I am dismissing the claim for termination in relation to anti-social behaviour because the notices for anti-social behaviour have not been served in a fair manner to meet the requirements of s 55A RTA. TERMINATION UNDER SECTION 56

I will address the claim for termination under section 56. Given the allegations from the landlord here, the Tribunal could order a termination of the tenancy under section 56 RTA, which is a general termination provision. Section 56 is as follows: 56 Termination for non-payment of rent and other breaches (1) On an application made to it under this section by the landlord or the tenant, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— (a) the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement (including provisions relating to the payment of rent) or of this Act; and (b) in the case of a breach capable of remedy,— (i) the applicant gave to the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given; and (ii) and the other party failed to remedy the default within the required period; and (c) that the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.

What this means is that 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. 2 Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord is required to serve a 14-day notice to remedy the breach on the tenant and prove that the tenant has not remedied the breach. 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.

There are two types of obligation on a tenant: positive covenants and negative covenants. Positive covenants are things the tenant is required to do, such as paying rent. Negative covenants are things that a tenant must not do, such as breaching the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours. Breach of a positive covenant can be remedied by requiring the tenant to do the thing they were supposed to do, such as paying the unpaid rent. The situation is not as straightforward with breach of a negative covenant, as it may not be possible to undo the thing the tenant did which they should not have done. In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management 3 , the District Court considered whether breach of s 48(4)(b) RTA (refusal to allow entry) was capable of remedy: ...Section 48(4)(b) imposes a negative obligation on the tenant. Several cases have held that breach of a negative covenant in a tenancy agreement is not capable of remedy in terms of s56(1)(b). the breach irremediably arises when the specified failure occurs. It is not always the case, however, that breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. Whether a negative covenant is capable of remedy will depend on the nature of the breach, and when viewed within the context of s56(1)(b)(i), whether the harm that might be caused by the breach can be effectively remedied within a reasonable period of not less than 14 days. (emphasis added)

It follows that a breach of a negative covenant would be capable of remedy where the effect of the breach can be remedied. Where however the breach, or the harmful effect of the breach, is serious, it may not be capable of remedy. The same may apply where there has been a persistent series of breaches, for example, where a tenant has repeatedly breached the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours.

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management 4 the Court also needed to consider the extent of section 56(1)(c), which requires consideration of whether the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be 2 RTA, section 56(1). 3 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 at [46]-[47] 4 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe) at [61]., inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. The Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant, being: a) The history of the tenancy. b) Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c) Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d) Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e) The conduct of the landlord. f) The gravity of the breach. g) Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

The issues I need to consider in respect of termination under s 56 of the RTA are: a. Has the tenant breached any obligation to the landlord? 5 b. If the breach is capable of remedy, has the landlord issued a 14-day notice to remedy which the tenant has not complied with 6 c. That the breach was of such significance, that it would be inequitable (unfair) not to terminate the tenancy? 7

HAS THE TENANT BREACHED ANY OBLIGATION TO THE LANDLORD?

Section 40 (2) (c) of the RTA says the tenant shall not cause or permit 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 with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.

The landlord says the tenant has breached their obligation to not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants.

Three witnesses gave written and oral evidence, being the neighbours (also KO tenants): [Witness 1] (Ms S), [Witness 2] (Ms T) and [Witness 3] (Ms B). The details of the breaches and the notices are set out below.

On 26 June 2025 the landlord served a notice of breach of the tenancy agreement on a tenant. The landlord said the tenant had been noisy. On 15 December 2025 the landlord served a notice of a breach on the tenant in respect of disruptive behaviour within the neighbourhood that related to the tenant threatening and verbally abusing her neighbour. 5 RTA, 56(1)(a). 6 RTA, s 56(1)(b). 7 RTA, s 56(1)(a).

On 22 January 2026 the landlord served a notice of breach of the tenancy agreement on a tenant. The landlord said the tenant had been noisy and verbally abusive and threatening to her neighbour. A statement was provided from the neighbour, Ms B, in relation to that breach. Ms B also gave oral evidence of the tenant swearing and threatening to kill her. Ms B says the tenant has given her a book about ways to die. Ms B says she recently received abusive cards from the tenant in her letter box.

On 10 February 2026 a neighbour, Ms T complained to the landlord about the tenant swearing, threatening and yelling at her, including telling Ms T she wants to kill her and having her music on full volume during the night and the day.

Ms S, complained to the landlord that on 27 February 2026 the tenant could be heard threatening to kill and murder other tenants. Ms S has had to trespass the tenant from her property. Ms S gave oral evidence at the hearing of the tenant yelling and swearing at other tenants. Ms S says the tenant was telling the other tenants to “fuck off” and threatening to murder them and her and saying they all need to die. Ms S says she did not engage with the tenant.

Ms T also gave oral evidence in relation to this incident and confirmed the tenant came out of her home and was yelling and threatened to kill them.

Ms S gave oral evidence on 9 March 2026 that she went out to check the bins and her rubbish had been thrown over the ground. Ms S had to pick up her rubbish and the tenant came out again and started emptying the bins again and emptied another tenant’s bin. Ms S said the tenant tipped the rubbish all over the road and it was too difficult to pick up. Ms S says she told the Police about this incident.

On 17 March 2026 the landlord received a complaint from a neighbour who said the tenant has been onto her property to take mandarins. The neighbour said she approached the tenant who acknowledged the behaviour and apologise.

On 13 April 2026 the landlord served a notice of breach of the tenancy agreement on the tenant. The landlord said the tenant had been excessively noisy and verbally abusive.

On 2 April 2026 The landlord served a notice of breach of the tenancy agreement on the tenant. The landlord said in that notice that the tenant had been yelling abuse at neighbours and tradesmen as well as writing abusive notes and chalk on the driveway directed at a neighbour.

On 13 April 2026 the landlord served a breach notice on the tenant in relation to the 8 April 2026 for disruptive behaviour including noise coming from her home and disagreements and verbal abuse/threats towards her neighbours.

The three witnesses all gave consistent evidence which reflected the persistent behaviour by the tenant set out in the breach notices. I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of her neighbouring tenants, which is a breach of her obligations.

ARE THE BREACHES CAPABLE OF REMEDY?

Given the nature, frequency and impact of the breaches in respect of the behavior towards the neighboring tenants I consider the breaches are not capable of remedy.

Ms S gave evidence about the significant impact on her own mental health in relation to the tenant’s behavior. Ms B gave evidence that she is unable to take the behavior from the tenant anymore.

INEQUITABLE TO REFUSE TO TERMINATE A TENANCY

Having determined that the tenant has breached her obligations, and the breach is not capable of remedy I will address each factor set out in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management in turn below in considering whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. a) the history of the tenancy: • The tenancy commenced in January 2004. It is therefore a relatively long tenancy. • Ms S said the issues have arisen largely in the last six months. b) whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings: • The tenant has been issued with several warning notices for breaching her obligations but appears unable to prevent the behaviour. The behaviour is persistent and repetitive. c) whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future: • I consider that there is a risk of ongoing non-compliance, given the persistent and serious nature of the breaches. • There is no evidence to suggest she is getting the professional support she needs to address the behaviour. d) whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed: • I consider the breach is most likely deliberate, given the nature of the breaches. e) the conduct of the landlord: • The landlord is a social housing provider. • I am confident the landlord has taken all reasonable steps to sustain this tenancy, however the situation has become untenantable. • I consider that the conduct of the landlord has been appropriate. f) the gravity of the breach: • The breaches are at the high end of the scale of breaches of the tenants’ obligations. • Other neighbouring tenants are worried for their safety. g) whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach: • I consider that termination is a proportionate response to the breaches. • The landlord is a social housing provider and the premises ought to be available for tenants who will not breach their obligations as the tenant has in this case.

The tenancy is terminated.

Section 138 of the District Court Act 2016 holds that normally an order cannot be enforced until 48 hours have expired, unless a “Judge grants leave”. However, section 106(2) of the RTA which relates to enforcement of possession orders, confirms that reference to a ‘Judge’ in section 138(1) applies as if it were reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator. This is a case where it is appropriate that leave be granted for an immediate enforcement of the possession order. There is a real risk to the neighbouring tenants from the tenancy continuing.

FILING FEE

The landlord waived the filing fee

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 8 The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 9

The landlord did not seek name suppression. 8 RTA, s 95A (1). 9 RTA, s 95A (4) and (5)

I have ordered suppression of the witnesses names and the address of the property as this is an identifying detail of the witnesses.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5488830 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5488830 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

HAS THE TENANT BREACHED ANY OBLIGATION TO THE LANDLORD?

ARE THE BREACHES CAPABLE OF REMEDY?

INEQUITABLE TO REFUSE TO TERMINATE A TENANCY

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

HAS THE TENANT BREACHED ANY OBLIGATION TO THE LANDLORD?

ARE THE BREACHES CAPABLE OF REMEDY?

INEQUITABLE TO REFUSE TO TERMINATE A TENANCY

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions