What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5508740 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 726 Pioneer

How much money was awarded in case 5508740?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5508740?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5508740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13853747-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5508740 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 726 Pioneer

How much money was awarded in case 5508740?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5508740?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5508740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13853747-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 1, 726 Pioneer Highway, Takaro, Palmerston Tenancy Tribunal Case 5508740 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5508740 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 726 Pioneer Highway, Takaro, Palmerston North 4412 is terminated, and possession is granted to Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited, at 11.59 am on Monday 13 July 2026.
[The tenant/s] must pay Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 6 July 2026, the matter having been part heard on 22 June 2026.
The tenant resides in a multi-unit complex. The tenancy commenced on 10 June 2021.
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 10 April 2026 Landlord had received complaints on 2 April, 4 April, 6 April, 7 April and 8 April 2026 from neighbouring tenants that the door to the tenant’s unit was constantly being slammed in the early hours of the morning. This caused unreasonable levels of noise and interfered with the quiet enjoyment of neighbouring residents. Notice dated 29 April 2026. This notice relates to an incident on 26 April 2026. The notice provides that the landlord received a “complaint that a male from your unit was observed yelling, swearing, and engaging in intimidating and taunting behaviour. This conduct continued over an extended period. It is also reported that another individual, identified as your family member, attended the property and further escalated the situation.... You also confirmed in person on 28/04/2026 that you had visitors present on Sunday, with one visitor behaving loudly and in a disruptive manner throughout the morning. “ Notice dated 18 May 2026 This notice relates to an incident that occurred on 15 May 2026 at 12.30 pm. The notice states that the landlord ”received a report that James engaged in intimidating behaviour causing distress to another tenant. It has been reported that James was vaping near another tenant. When he was asked to cease this behaviour, he then behaved in a manner that was intimidating. James stood close to another tenant while blowing vape smoke, despite the tenant clearly asking him to move away. His aggressive response, stating “I don’t give a fuck about the police,” was confrontational and intimidating. The behaviour escalated further when he circled around the tenant instead of leaving the area, causing distress and fear, particularly as he only moved away once another family member came outside after hearing the commotion....” James is the tenant’s partner.
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 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.
The tenant has not filed her own application challenging the anti-social behaviour notices. Section 55A (2)(iv) RTA requires that when a landlord gives a notice, they must also set out the right to challenge the notice to the Tenancy Tribunal. Further, s55A(6) RTA confirms that if the tenant files an application, then the landlord must prove the event occurred.
The principle is that parliament does not include provisions in legislation which have no purpose. If this hearing were to take the ‘usual’ course where a tenant can challenge a notice as a defence at the hearing, then there would not be any need for subsection 6. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, that is to say that the precise stipulation of one matter implies the necessary exclusion of the other matter.
In those circumstances, where a tenant has failed to file an application challenging the notices, the anti-social acts referred to in the notices are deemed to have occurred. That is despite the fact that the tenant may dispute the issues referred to in the notices at the hearing.
Having failed to lodge a challenge to the notices, the tenant’s potential defences are limited to challenges that the notices were; • Not issued. • Were defective in some manner. • Unfair because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred or the notices were given. • In making the application, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or the RTA 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).(s.55A(3)(b) RTA).
The tenant’s evidence was essentially that one neighbour had made the complaints and was acting unreasonably and that the incidents did not occur in the manner set out in the notices.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
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 notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
The tenant has not filed a challenge to the notices and in those circumstances, I find that he anti-social acts referred to in the notices are deemed to have occurred.
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.
The tenancy is terminated.
As Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5508740 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 726 Pioneer Highway, Takaro, Palmerston North 4412 is terminated, and possession is granted to Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited, at 11.59 am on Monday 13 July 2026.
[The tenant/s] must pay Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 6 July 2026, the matter having been part heard on 22 June 2026.
The tenant resides in a multi-unit complex. The tenancy commenced on 10 June 2021.
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 10 April 2026 Landlord had received complaints on 2 April, 4 April, 6 April, 7 April and 8 April 2026 from neighbouring tenants that the door to the tenant’s unit was constantly being slammed in the early hours of the morning. This caused unreasonable levels of noise and interfered with the quiet enjoyment of neighbouring residents. Notice dated 29 April 2026. This notice relates to an incident on 26 April 2026. The notice provides that the landlord received a “complaint that a male from your unit was observed yelling, swearing, and engaging in intimidating and taunting behaviour. This conduct continued over an extended period. It is also reported that another individual, identified as your family member, attended the property and further escalated the situation.... You also confirmed in person on 28/04/2026 that you had visitors present on Sunday, with one visitor behaving loudly and in a disruptive manner throughout the morning. “ Notice dated 18 May 2026 This notice relates to an incident that occurred on 15 May 2026 at 12.30 pm. The notice states that the landlord ”received a report that James engaged in intimidating behaviour causing distress to another tenant. It has been reported that James was vaping near another tenant. When he was asked to cease this behaviour, he then behaved in a manner that was intimidating. James stood close to another tenant while blowing vape smoke, despite the tenant clearly asking him to move away. His aggressive response, stating “I don’t give a fuck about the police,” was confrontational and intimidating. The behaviour escalated further when he circled around the tenant instead of leaving the area, causing distress and fear, particularly as he only moved away once another family member came outside after hearing the commotion....” James is the tenant’s partner.
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 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.
The tenant has not filed her own application challenging the anti-social behaviour notices. Section 55A (2)(iv) RTA requires that when a landlord gives a notice, they must also set out the right to challenge the notice to the Tenancy Tribunal. Further, s55A(6) RTA confirms that if the tenant files an application, then the landlord must prove the event occurred.
The principle is that parliament does not include provisions in legislation which have no purpose. If this hearing were to take the ‘usual’ course where a tenant can challenge a notice as a defence at the hearing, then there would not be any need for subsection 6. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, that is to say that the precise stipulation of one matter implies the necessary exclusion of the other matter.
In those circumstances, where a tenant has failed to file an application challenging the notices, the anti-social acts referred to in the notices are deemed to have occurred. That is despite the fact that the tenant may dispute the issues referred to in the notices at the hearing.
Having failed to lodge a challenge to the notices, the tenant’s potential defences are limited to challenges that the notices were; • Not issued. • Were defective in some manner. • Unfair because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred or the notices were given. • In making the application, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or the RTA 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).(s.55A(3)(b) RTA).
The tenant’s evidence was essentially that one neighbour had made the complaints and was acting unreasonably and that the incidents did not occur in the manner set out in the notices.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
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 notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
The tenant has not filed a challenge to the notices and in those circumstances, I find that he anti-social acts referred to in the notices are deemed to have occurred.
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.
The tenancy is terminated.
As Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5508740 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 726 Pioneer Highway, Takaro, Palmerston

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5508740 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 726 Pioneer Highway, Takaro, Palmerston

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions