Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5505858 — Harassment
Decided 6 Jul 2026 · Published 6 Jul 2026 · Application 5505858
- 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
S Young
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 Tenant’s name and identifying details.
- The application is dismissed.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the remote hearing.
- The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link or by telephone. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given.
- The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
- The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is; Notice dated 8 May 2026. This notice relates to an incident which occurred on 6 May 2026. The notice states “It was reported that repeated loud banging noises were coming from your apartment and were causing disturbance to neighbouring residents. When approached by the Property Manager regarding the disturbance, you stated that you were responding to noises allegedly coming from another tenant’s unit. Property Management subsequently confirmed that the tenant referred to was not present at the property at the time. The reported conduct caused alarm, distress, and disruption to neighbouring residents and interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of the Papakāinga community.” The notice was served on the tenant on 12 May 2026. Notice dated 11 May 2026. The notice relates to an incident at 10.30 am on 7 May 2026. The notice states; “It was reported that food had been thrown or deliberately left outside another tenant’s whare in a manner perceived as targeted and intimidating. The affected tenant reported feeling unsafe and distressed as a result of this conduct.” The notice was served on the tenant on 15 May 2026. Notice dated 11 May 2026 The notice relates to an incident at 1.37pm on 7 May 2026. The notice states” It was reported that you were observed remaining outside another tenant’s whare without reasonable purpose. When approached by the Property Manager and directed to leave the area, it is alleged that you made comments to the effect that if Mahitahi Kāinga Trust did not “do something” about the tenant, you would “take matters into your own hands” and “deal with it yourself.” The Property Manager reported concerns regarding the threatening and intimidating nature of these comments and their impact on the safety and wellbeing of the affected tenant and neighbouring residents” The notice was served on the tenant on 15 May 2026. The application under s 55A.
- The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
- In order to seek an order for termination under s 55A, the landlord must point to three notices of anti-social behaviour within a 90-day period in connection with the tenancy.
- Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, 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 antisocial 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 anti-social behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes significant alarm, distress or nuisance.
- I am satisfied the events referred to in each of the notices constitute anti-social behaviour in terms of the Act and that the formal requirements for the notices set out in s 55A (2) are met.
- Under s 55A (3), however, I must not make an order if I am satisfied that doing so would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the notices were given.
- The second and third notices were delivered on the same day, albeit they related to different events. The process is designed to ensure that tenants are given notice of what the landlord deems antisocial behaviour and have both a period to challenge the notice and or rectify any antisocial behaviour. It is a stepped approach, if the tenant has had three sperate notices and therefore three opportunities to change their behaviour and do not do so, then the landlord can apply for termination.
- The three incidents complained of occurred on 6 and 7 May 2026, before the first anti-social behaviour notice had been served. The tenant had not had the opportunity to challenge the notices or to correct his behaviour. The three notices were served on the tenant on 12 and 15 May 2026, well after the behaviour complained of occurred.
- I am of the view the tenant did not have the effective right to challenge the first notice before the second and third notices were delivered. I therefore find that it would be unfair to terminate under s 55A.
- The tenant should be aware that any further behaviour which may be considered anti-social will not doubt result in anti-social behaviour notices being served on him by the landlord. The landlord should, in the event that this matter comes back before the Tribunal, make sure that the adjudicator hearing the matter is aware of this order.
- The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed. The Tribunal may make an order for name suppression on its own motion. The tenant has been wholly successful in this hearing, despite not attending the hearing. Suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered