What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5489749 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 5489749?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5489749?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5489749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13639062-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5489749 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 5489749?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5489749?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5489749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13639062-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

150A Titirangi Road, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5489749 — Harassment

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 application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I held by video today.
The tenants have applied for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 21 August 2026. Background
The tenants want the tenancy ended sooner due to an incident that occurred on 11 April 2026. While mowing the lawns in the afternoon, a neighbour angrily confronted them saying they were disturbing his sleep. While there was no physical altercation, the neighbour’s behaviour was threatening and aggressive and as he was leaving, he said to Mr Narayan that he would ‘rape his wife’ referring to Ms Wilson (Mrs Narayan).
The neighbour has apparently also harassed another neighbour about mowing their lawns and smashed that person’s letterbox.
The tenants called the police while the incident on 11 April was unfolding but when the police were told that the neighbour was leaving, they did not attend or follow-up on the incident.
Mrs Narayan left the tenancy after the event to live with family. Mr Narayan left the tenancy a few weeks later and joined her.
The day after the incident, the tenants gave 3 weeks’ notice to end the tenancy. The landlord has agreed to release the tenants from the fixed term tenancy once a new tenant is found. The landlord has agreed to waive any fees associated with a change in tenancy. The law
The relevant law is set out in section 66(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.

Should the Tribunal release the tenants from the fixed term tenancy?

An application under section 66 RTA is an application that needs to meet a high threshold. The Tribunal does not lightly interfere with, or set aside, contracts.
Here, the incident that occurred was no doubt frightening. But did it constitute an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances in the context of section 66

RTA?

Living in an urban environment means that incidents like this can and do happen. It is akin to ‘road rage’. The neighbouring tenant acted entirely inappropriately and was threatening, but I do not find that the single incident constitutes an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances.
After the incident, the tenants installed security cameras. The neighbour has not returned to the property since, nor have there been any other threatening incidents. Had there been, something of a pattern would be established and that would probably amount to an unforeseen change in circumstances, since it would involve continuing harassment.
Objectively viewed, the one-off incident, though frightening, does not meet the threshold for an unforeseen change in circumstances that section 66 RTA requires. It is akin to an argument between neighbours initiated by only one party where extreme language is used, but without any physical consequence.
For these reasons, I find that the tenants’ application does not satisfy the first part of the statutory test - there has not been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances.
I need not therefore consider the second and third limbs of the test – severe hardship to the tenants and (ordinary) hardship to the landlord. Result
The application is dismissed.
I encourage the parties to work together to find replacement tenants, failing which the tenants remain liable for rent until the tenancy ends on 21 August 2026. Name suppression
The tenants did not seek a name suppression order.
The landlord sought, and is entitled to, name suppression as their defence to the application is successful 1 .

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 application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I held by video today.
The tenants have applied for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 21 August 2026. Background
The tenants want the tenancy ended sooner due to an incident that occurred on 11 April 2026. While mowing the lawns in the afternoon, a neighbour angrily confronted them saying they were disturbing his sleep. While there was no physical altercation, the neighbour’s behaviour was threatening and aggressive and as he was leaving, he said to Mr Narayan that he would ‘rape his wife’ referring to Ms Wilson (Mrs Narayan).
The neighbour has apparently also harassed another neighbour about mowing their lawns and smashed that person’s letterbox.
The tenants called the police while the incident on 11 April was unfolding but when the police were told that the neighbour was leaving, they did not attend or follow-up on the incident.
Mrs Narayan left the tenancy after the event to live with family. Mr Narayan left the tenancy a few weeks later and joined her.
The day after the incident, the tenants gave 3 weeks’ notice to end the tenancy. The landlord has agreed to release the tenants from the fixed term tenancy once a new tenant is found. The landlord has agreed to waive any fees associated with a change in tenancy. The law
The relevant law is set out in section 66(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.

Should the Tribunal release the tenants from the fixed term tenancy?

An application under section 66 RTA is an application that needs to meet a high threshold. The Tribunal does not lightly interfere with, or set aside, contracts.
Here, the incident that occurred was no doubt frightening. But did it constitute an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances in the context of section 66

RTA?

Living in an urban environment means that incidents like this can and do happen. It is akin to ‘road rage’. The neighbouring tenant acted entirely inappropriately and was threatening, but I do not find that the single incident constitutes an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances.
After the incident, the tenants installed security cameras. The neighbour has not returned to the property since, nor have there been any other threatening incidents. Had there been, something of a pattern would be established and that would probably amount to an unforeseen change in circumstances, since it would involve continuing harassment.
Objectively viewed, the one-off incident, though frightening, does not meet the threshold for an unforeseen change in circumstances that section 66 RTA requires. It is akin to an argument between neighbours initiated by only one party where extreme language is used, but without any physical consequence.
For these reasons, I find that the tenants’ application does not satisfy the first part of the statutory test - there has not been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances.
I need not therefore consider the second and third limbs of the test – severe hardship to the tenants and (ordinary) hardship to the landlord. Result
The application is dismissed.
I encourage the parties to work together to find replacement tenants, failing which the tenants remain liable for rent until the tenancy ends on 21 August 2026. Name suppression
The tenants did not seek a name suppression order.
The landlord sought, and is entitled to, name suppression as their defence to the application is successful 1 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5489749 — Harassment at 150A Titirangi Road, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5489749 — Harassment at 150A Titirangi Road, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal release the tenants from the fixed term tenancy?

RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal release the tenants from the fixed term tenancy?

RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions