What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5508729 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 5508729?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5508729?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5508729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13739290-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5508729 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 5508729?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5508729?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5508729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13739290-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5508729 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord 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 11.59pm,Monday 15 June 2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video .The tenant was called twice on the phone number provided but did not answer. The landlord confirmed that the last communication with the tenant was on 30 May 2026.
The notice of hearing was sent on 28 May 2026 and text reminders on 6 June and 10 June 2026.I find that the tenant had received notice of this hearing, and the hearing continued in their absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The tenant has breached their obligations by continuing to disturb the neighbour’s peace and quiet enjoyment, frightening them and causing concern for their safety and the safety of the tenant.
The tenant lives in a cul-de-sac that contains 4 houses. The landlord received complaints about the tenant’s behaviour from neighbours which included, •Many claims of the yelling and screaming through the night. •Banging noises preventing sleep. •When outside during the day ‘acting crazy’ so that others will not cross the nearby bridge. •Having drugs delivered to their doors. •Serious attempts to harm themselves. •Multiple Police and ambulance call outs for harm incidents. •Rescue by helicopter for self-harm attempt. •Noises and voices from them at the premises at all hours
The landlord provided copies of complaints from the neighbours received via messenger. Two were made on 13 May, 17 May, 21 May, and 22 May 2026.
The landlord said that they do not feel safe going to the premises for inspections without support and have a real concern for the tenant’s wellbeing. The landlord stated that he found out on 14 April that the tenant had jumped off the nearby bridge and had to be rescued by helicopter. Also, over the long weekend of 1 June 2026, the Police were called to the tenants premises every night.
On 16 April 2026 the landlord issued a 14 day notice reporting a complaint from other occupants about loud screaming and banging of walls on 12 April 2026.The notice warned the tenant to cease the anti-social behaviour and if the behaviour continued further action could be taken including an application to the tenancy Tribunal.
On 18 May 2026 the landlord issued a further 14 day notice detailing serious incidents from 2 May to 18 May, which included Police removing the tenant, drugs, loud screaming and banging, and doors opening and shutting and singing at 4.30am.It stated that other tenants were fearful and distressed by the ongoing incidents. The letter gave the tenant 14 days to remedy but also stated that an application to the tenancy Tribunal had been made for immediate termination.
The landlord provided a message from the tenant dated 30 May 2026 where the tenant apologised for the behaviour and said that they would try to ‘leave the premises by 11 June if 20 th ‘ is not a possible deadline’. It confirmed that they had had jumped off a bridge and attempted to take their own life.
An email from a neighbour dated 31 May outlined concerns about the safety risks and disruptions caused by the tenant which included entering their property during the day ‘ in a state of psychosis’, violent door banging at night, multiple Police and Ambulance call outs, leaving them feeling unsafe being in their home. They complained that their peace comfort and privacy was not protected.
The breach is not capable of remedy because the tenant on multiple occasions during the tenancy engaged in severe and disruptive behaviour during the day and loud alarming behaviour through the night which has caused significant fear distress and nuisance to the neighbours.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because despite the landlord issuing notices regarding these concerns the tenant has failed to cease this behaviour, and it has had a direct impact on the quality of life of those living nearby. The landlord also has a duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of their other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any tenant in the use of the premises (section 45(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
Further, 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.
Due to the sensitive nature of some of the evidence and the tenants state of mental health I have granted suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying particulars. I do not believe that it is in the interest of the parties or public that these details be published.
Name suppression for both parties are granted and the tenancy address are supressed.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord 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 11.59pm,Monday 15 June 2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video .The tenant was called twice on the phone number provided but did not answer. The landlord confirmed that the last communication with the tenant was on 30 May 2026.
The notice of hearing was sent on 28 May 2026 and text reminders on 6 June and 10 June 2026.I find that the tenant had received notice of this hearing, and the hearing continued in their absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The tenant has breached their obligations by continuing to disturb the neighbour’s peace and quiet enjoyment, frightening them and causing concern for their safety and the safety of the tenant.
The tenant lives in a cul-de-sac that contains 4 houses. The landlord received complaints about the tenant’s behaviour from neighbours which included, •Many claims of the yelling and screaming through the night. •Banging noises preventing sleep. •When outside during the day ‘acting crazy’ so that others will not cross the nearby bridge. •Having drugs delivered to their doors. •Serious attempts to harm themselves. •Multiple Police and ambulance call outs for harm incidents. •Rescue by helicopter for self-harm attempt. •Noises and voices from them at the premises at all hours
The landlord provided copies of complaints from the neighbours received via messenger. Two were made on 13 May, 17 May, 21 May, and 22 May 2026.
The landlord said that they do not feel safe going to the premises for inspections without support and have a real concern for the tenant’s wellbeing. The landlord stated that he found out on 14 April that the tenant had jumped off the nearby bridge and had to be rescued by helicopter. Also, over the long weekend of 1 June 2026, the Police were called to the tenants premises every night.
On 16 April 2026 the landlord issued a 14 day notice reporting a complaint from other occupants about loud screaming and banging of walls on 12 April 2026.The notice warned the tenant to cease the anti-social behaviour and if the behaviour continued further action could be taken including an application to the tenancy Tribunal.
On 18 May 2026 the landlord issued a further 14 day notice detailing serious incidents from 2 May to 18 May, which included Police removing the tenant, drugs, loud screaming and banging, and doors opening and shutting and singing at 4.30am.It stated that other tenants were fearful and distressed by the ongoing incidents. The letter gave the tenant 14 days to remedy but also stated that an application to the tenancy Tribunal had been made for immediate termination.
The landlord provided a message from the tenant dated 30 May 2026 where the tenant apologised for the behaviour and said that they would try to ‘leave the premises by 11 June if 20 th ‘ is not a possible deadline’. It confirmed that they had had jumped off a bridge and attempted to take their own life.
An email from a neighbour dated 31 May outlined concerns about the safety risks and disruptions caused by the tenant which included entering their property during the day ‘ in a state of psychosis’, violent door banging at night, multiple Police and Ambulance call outs, leaving them feeling unsafe being in their home. They complained that their peace comfort and privacy was not protected.
The breach is not capable of remedy because the tenant on multiple occasions during the tenancy engaged in severe and disruptive behaviour during the day and loud alarming behaviour through the night which has caused significant fear distress and nuisance to the neighbours.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because despite the landlord issuing notices regarding these concerns the tenant has failed to cease this behaviour, and it has had a direct impact on the quality of life of those living nearby. The landlord also has a duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of their other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any tenant in the use of the premises (section 45(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
Further, 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.
Due to the sensitive nature of some of the evidence and the tenants state of mental health I have granted suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying particulars. I do not believe that it is in the interest of the parties or public that these details be published.
Name suppression for both parties are granted and the tenancy address are supressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5508729 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5508729 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions