What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5517173 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 5517173?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5517173?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5517173?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13783039-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5517173 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 5517173?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5517173?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5517173?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13783039-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5517173 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5517173 — 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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5517173 — 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

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Donald Humphreys at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 on Friday 26 June 2026.
Donald Humphreys must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 18 June 2026.
The tenancy commenced on 19 November 2025. It is a fixed term tenancy to end on 20 November 2026.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds ;
Anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
Breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) capable of remedy.
Breach of the RTA which is not capable of remedy.
Reimbursement of the filing fee. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. The Tribunal is not required to ascertain the truth, but only to make a finding of whether the party bringing the claim has shown that their version is more likely than not.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated:
“...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Anti-social behaviour
The landlord seeks to terminate the tenancy as a result of anti-social behaviour by the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s consent.
Section 55A RTA provides that a landlord under a periodic tenancy may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating a tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour where specific conditions have been met.
This is a fixed term tenancy, not a periodic tenancy. The anti-social behaviour process under s.55A RTA does not apply and the application is dismissed. Breach of tenant’s obligations
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
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 capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The first 14-day breach notice served by the landlord on the tenant is dated 7 May 2026.
The notice states that the tenant has breached his obligations in the following manner; “Police attendance at the property Loud music being played at all hours of the day/night Breaching the quiet enjoyment of neighbouring properties Antisocial behaviour Excessive rubbish at the property Smoking inside the property General cleaning and upkeep of the property Vehicles being parked on grassed areas Unapproved occupants residing at the property.”
The notice provides that the tenant would have until 21 May 2026, to remedy the issues by: “Ensure there is no further Police attendance required at the property. Cease playing loud music or creating excessive noise at all hours of the day/night. Ensure neighbouring properties’ quiet enjoyment is not disturbed. Cease all antisocial behaviour occurring at the property. Remove all excessive rubbish and ensure rubbish is disposed of appropriately on an ongoing basis.”
The landlord says that the tenant has not remedied some of the breaches within the required period.
The landlord says that the council noise control officers visited the premises on 14 June 2026 as a result of receiving noise complaints.
At least six neighbours have complained about the loud music.
The neighbours quiet enjoyment has been disturbed by the tenant parking a car on the footpath. The tenant left the car there for at least four days whilst the tenant’s son worked on his car. The tenant used spotlights to work on the car at night. Oil leaked onto the footpath. Neighbours were prevented from using the footpath.
The tenant’s son yelled at pedestrians passing on the footpath.
A second 14-day breach notice was served on the tenant dated 20 May 2026. The notice states: Noise complaints from residents surrounding property Antisocial Behaviour Breaching Quiet Enjoyment This letter is not an eviction notice. It is a notice giving you until 03/06/2026 to remedy the situation by doing the following: Seize playing loud music Be respectful of neighbors” (sic).
The landlord says that the tenant has not complied with the notice as there have been further noise related problems. The council noise officer having visited the premises on 14 June 2026.
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 s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
There are two types of obligation on a tenant: positive covenants and negative covenants. Positive covenants are things the tenant is required to do, such as paying rent. Negative covenants are things that a tenant must not do, such as breaching the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours.
Breach of a positive covenant can be remedied by requiring the tenant to do the thing they were supposed to do, such as paying the unpaid rent.
The situation is not as straightforward with breach of a negative covenant, as it may not be possible to undo the thing the tenant did which they should not have done. In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered whether breach of s 48(4)(b) RTA (refusal to allow entry) was capable of remedy:
Section 48(4)(b) imposes a negative obligation on the tenant. Several cases have held that breach of a negative covenant in a tenancy agreement is not capable of remedy in terms of s56(1)(b). The breach irremediably arises when the specified failure occurs.
It is not always the case, however, that breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. Whether a negative covenant is capable of remedy will depend on the nature of the breach, and when viewed within the context of s56(1)(b)(i), whether the harm that might be caused by the breach can be effectively remedied within a reasonable period of not less than 14 days.
It follows that a breach of a negative covenant would be capable of remedy where the effect of the breach can be remedied. Where however the breach, or the harmful effect of the breach, is serious, it may not be capable of remedy. The same may apply where there has been a persistent series of breaches, for example, where a tenant has repeatedly breached the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours.
The tenant accepts that there were some noise issues and that the car was parked at the front of the house while his son was working on the engine but says that those concerns have been addressed.
The main issue appears to be noise. There have been persistent breaches and the council noise officer has been called. The tenant says that the noise officer has not been to the property for two or three weeks. In this matter, I prefer the evidence of the landlord.
Having found that there have been ongoing breaches by the tenant, despite the 14-day breach notices having been served, I must go on to consider if it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
This is a relatively brief tenancy having commenced only seven months ago. During that time there have been a number of breaches for ongoing issues of noise, despite two 14-day breach notices having been served. The tenant’s evidence was that the breaches have now been remedied as much as they can and that there have been no ongoing breaches. I prefer the evidence of the landlord that as recently as Sunday 14 June 2006, the tenant has been visited by the council noise control officer. Breaches of noise control can only be said to be intentional as it is a matter entirely in the tenant’s control.
Is the noise breach sufficiently grave to make termination of the tenancy a proportionate response? The tenant does not seem to have grasped the effect that their behaviour is having on the community. The noise results in a breach of all the neighbourhoods right to the peaceful enjoyment of their premises. The repeated incidents have occurred over a relatively short space of time. In those circumstances, I consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The tenancy is terminated.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Termination for breach incapable of remedy.
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) RTA.
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 landlord says that the tenant has breached the RTA as a result of assaults which occurred at the premises. The only evidence in support of this application was a statement by unnamed neighbours.
The Tribunal will generally require witnesses to provide their names when giving evidence. This allows the tribunal and the other party to know who is giving the evidence and to assess their credibility. The Tribunal has discretion about what evidence it accepts. Where a witness does not provide their name, the Tribunal may refuse to accept that evidence. This approach is consistent with the general principles of natural justice and the Tribunal’s powers under the RTA to control its own procedure and determine what evidence to accept. As the witnesses have not provided their names, the evidence is excluded. There being no evidence to support the application it is dismissed.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5517173 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5517173 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions