Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5500027 — Harassment
Decided 20 May 2026 · Published 20 May 2026 · Application 5500027
- 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
M Feist
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
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord and tenant’s name and identifying details.
- The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at midnight on Friday 22 May 2026.
Reasons
- The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Tenancy Team Lead], Tenancy Team Lead, [Tenancy Manager], Tenancy Manager, and [General Manager], General Manager of Auckland City Housing appeared for the landlord.
- The tenant appeared and was supported by his key worker [key worker].
- The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds that the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, has: a. on 3 separate occasions (in this case on five separate occasions) within a 90-day period engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy, see section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”); 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.
- The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor, see section 55A(7) of the Act.
- The Applicant claimed that the tenant and or people permitted at the property with the tenant’s consent, acted in an antisocial manner by doing the following: a. On 7 March 2026 at 3:16am the tenant and his partner were arguing during which time a window was broken. Neighbour(s) called the Police who attended – confirmation from Police of their attendance was provided. Neighbours(s) complained to the landlord about the tenants behaviour. Photographs of the broken front window in the unit were provided along with an invoice for repairs. The first antisocial behaviour notice was issued in response to this incident on 10 March 2026. b. On 9 March 2026 at 1:00am neighbour(s) heard violent screaming between the tenant and a female that lasted approximately one hour, during which time a window was smashed. Neighbour(s) called the Police who attended – confirmation from police of their attendance was provided. Neighbour(s) complained to the landlord about the tenants behaviour. Photographs of the broken window at the rear of the unit and damage to the door jam, and an invoice for the cost of repairs was provided. A second anti-social behaviour notice was issued in response to this incident on 24 March 2026. c. On 23 March 2026 at 3:00am the tenant and a male visitor were heard by neighbour(s) engaging in a violent altercation during which time the tenant’s car window was smashed. Neighbour(s) called Police who attended and a metal bat was located at the scene. Confirmation from Police of their attendance was provided. Neighbour(s) complained to the landlord about the tenant’s behaviour. Photographs showing damage to the front of the property was provided along with an invoice for the cost of repairs. A third antisocial behaviour notice was issued in response to the incident on 24 March 2026. d. On 19 April 2026 at 8:00pm the tenant and a female visitor engaged in a verbal altercation. Yelling, shouting, aggressive swearing and banging disturbed the neighbours. Neighbour(s) complained to the landlord about the tenant’s behaviour. A fourth anti-social behaviour notice was issued on 24 April 2026. e. On 26 April 2026 at 6:20pm the tenant and a female were heard by neighbour(s) engaging in loud verbal altercation during which time screaming and swearing were heard. Neighbour(s) called Police who attended. Confirmation from Police of their attendance was provided. Police records show the parties refused to engage with them. Neighbour(s) complained to the landlord about the tenant’s behaviour. A fifth anti-social behaviour notice was issued on 30 April 2026.
- At the hearing, the tenant apologised to the landlord and the Tribunal for their actions which lead up to this application. The tenant acknowledged each of the incidents stating: a. On 7 March 2026 he and his partner returned to the property after being asked to leave a family party. He accepted they had a “little incident” and a window was smashed. b. On 9 March 2026, his former partner arrived at the property uninvited and started yelling and shouting after he told her he had “moved on”. c. On 23 March 2026, his brother and two nephews arrived at the property uninvited. They engaged in an argument during which time his brother smash up his car with a taiaha. In response the tenant said he became angry and was in possession of two baseball bats. d. On 26 April 2026 he and his partner had a “little argument” and the Police were called out. The tenant told the Tribunal that he does not want to be “kicked out”, is getting support, and starts anger management counselling on Wednesday. Analysis and decision
- The Act defines what is anti-social behaviour and provides for strict processes that should be followed by the landlord when giving notices for anti-social behaviour that may lead to termination.
- I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above. I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the tenant or persons permitted by them to be at the address have committed anti-social behaviour because: a. The notices describe the dates, times, and the behaviour that occurred. This allows me to conclude the tenant had been present at the property on the date and time of the incidents and that they had engaged in the behaviour described. b. The landlord provided the Tribunal with evidence from Police confirming their attendance at the property on four separate occasions. There were also photographs and invoices for the damage to the property that occurred during three of the altercations. c. The tenant confirmed their presence at each of the incidents and provided an explanation for what had occurred.
- I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served 5 notices on the tenant. Two notices were served on the same day. However the Tribunal is satisfied the requirements of section 55A of the Act have been met, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
- I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
- I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy. Other matters
- Both parties seek name suppression.
- Section 95A(1) of the Act provided that the Tribunal must, on application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, order that party’s name and 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.
- Ordinarily the Tribunal would not order suppression of the social housing providers name as it is the public interest for this information to be available to promote accountability and transparency of decision making.
- However, in this case the Tribunal has determined that it is appropriate to order suppression of the parties name and identifying particulars. That is because the landlord intends to continue to offer housing and support for the tenant after this tenancy ends.
- The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.