What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5518291 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 5518291?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5518291?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5518291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14070819-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5518291 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 5518291?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5518291?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5518291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14070819-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5518291 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

[The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s] attended the hearing, which was held as an in-person hearing on 2 July 2026.
I apologise to the parties for the delay in issuing this decision. Background
The tenant claims that the landlord has not taken all reasonable steps to ensure that [The party] of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in her use of the premises. See section 45(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant has asked the Tribunal to make an order that her landlord issues a breach notice against her neighbour and that the landlord relocates her neighbour, who is also a tenant of the landlord. The Tribunal cannot make an order that affects another person who is not a party to these proceedings. As an order to relocate the neighbour would affect that neighbour’s rights, it is simply not an order the Tribunal can make.
The Tribunal only deals with disputes between landlord and tenant, and cannot consider claims between tenants. Therefore the only orders that the Tribunal can make in this and other such applications is to: a. determine if the landlord has breached its obligations b. order compensation if the application includes such a claim.
The tenant confirmed at the hearing that she is not seeking compensation.
The tenancy is for a unit in a complex of around 27 units, for older tenants, usually aged 65+ years. The complex was previously owned and managed by [the Council] before it was managed by the landlord. All of the units’ occupants are tenants of the landlord.
The tenant and her husband’s tenancy commenced on 25 October 2010. Sadly the tenant’s husband passed away in 2016.
The tenant said that for at least the last four years she has had difficulties with her neighbour (“[The neighbour]”) who lives in the unit that is immediately behind her unit. She claims [The neighbour] displays anti-social behaviours towards her, and that her mental health has suffered as a result of [The neighbour’s] abusive and repetitive name calling, which she considers to be harassment. The tenant claims [The neighbour] is breaching her right to quiet enjoyment of her premises and that the landlord is not taking reasonable steps to stop this happening.
The tenant described [The neighbour’s] behaviours as including: •verbally abusing her, using vulgar and offensive language when she is gardening in her own garden and walking along communal paths in the complex; •threatening her physically, including threatening to hit her with a broom; •looks at her in an intimidating manner and demonstrating her dislike for her; •going door to door asking other tenants living in the complex to sign a petition to have her removed from the complex; •threatening to harm her cats
The tenant provided an email she sent to the landlord on 5 May 2026 in support of her assertions. The email contains a list that the tenant described as “all of [The neighbour’s] abuse toward me”. The list includes: a. verbal abuse, consisting of phrases [The neighbour] has said to her: You are a fucken bitch You are a bitch You are a piece of shit You haven’t a decent bone in your body You don’t belong here. b. emotional abuse, that [The neighbour] told her that she had had an affair with her husband while she was grieving c. threatening and other actions:  threatening to: strike her with a broom; hit her over the head with a pot; kill her two cats;  turning the hose on her twice;  trespassing her twice;  asking other tenants in the complex to sign a petition to have her removed.
The tenant said she has followed the landlord’s policies by filing her complaints on the landlord’s complaints form on many occasions, but that the landlord’s response is usually the same: that they have investigated the complaint, spoken to [The neighbour] and actions have been taken.
The tenant believes the landlord is not taking her complaints seriously and as a result [The neighbour’s] harassment of her continues. She believes that after 4 years the landlord has not put effective measures in place to stop [The neighbour’s] anti-social behaviours, and that it is apparent she will never have the reasonable peace and comfort that is her entitlement while [The neighbour] is her neighbour.
The tenant said she took the landlord’s advice and has gone to the Police over various of [The neighbour’s] behaviours. The tenant provided 6 police reports she has made about incidents involving [The neighbour] which occurred between May 2019 and March 2026. The incidents reported include: - May 2019: [The neighbour] threatening to strike the tenant with a broom. The police report records from their investigation “no assault has occurred”, it is “a matter of neighbours at war where one party has potentially embellished the situation” and that the tenant advised them after the event that the matter had been resolved. In the report there was reference to the tenant telling the police that previously [The neighbour] had threatened to kill her animals. - October 2022: [The neighbour] threatening to hit the tenant over the head with a pot following a verbal altercation between them, when the tenant told a plumber to remove soil he had put into a communal wheelbarrow when doing plumbing work in [The neighbour’s] garden. The report records [The neighbour] has issued a trespass notice on the tenant. - August 2023: [The neighbour] reported that the tenant had been on her property in breach of the trespass notice. The Police reported following their investigation that it is possible the tenant had not been on [The neighbour’s] property and confirmed to the tenant that the trespass notice was still valid ( the tenant had believed it was not). The tenant told the police [The neighbour] swears at her and calls her “a bitch” without provocation. - September 2023: the tenant complained [The neighbour] is “continuing to make her life hell”, and that every time she goes outside [The neighbour] calls her “a fuckin bitch”. The police report records that “The landlord needs to move one of them to a different flat, and has indicated they have the ability to do that”, and that this does “not presently warrant any further Police intervention”. - January 2026: the tenant reported harassment from [The neighbour], and that she has recently taken photos of her while she was in her garden. The report records [The neighbour] served a further trespass notice on the tenant on 8 January 2026. - March 2026: the tenant reported [The neighbour] had gone door to door to other units in the complex with a petition stating that she is harassing [The neighbour] and that [The neighbour] wants her removed from the complex (referred to as “the petition incident”).
The landlord agrees that there is ongoing conflict between the tenant and [The neighbour]. The landlord says each time the tenant makes a complaint the landlord investigates the complaint and responds to the tenant.
The landlord says that mainly the tenant’s complaints about [The neighbour] involve interactions that are not substantiated, for example by independent evidence from a third party. When they investigate and ask [The neighbour] what has happened, they hear a different story and view to the tenant’s, and that leaves them in a position where they have no clear understanding of what has happened or been said.
Essentially, the landlord is saying that the only evidence usually available is “he said, she said” evidence. An example given was that the landlord does not recall the tenant complaining that [The neighbour] said any of the phrases set out in her 5 May 2026 email except “you are a piece of shit”. When [The neighbour] was asked about this, she denied using those words but accepted she had said something else inappropriate to the tenant. There was no corroborating evidence of what was said available to the landlord.
The landlord said it frequently receive emails from the tenant, citing over 110 emails sent to the landlord’s team leader in the year ending early August 2026. The landlord said some of the emails are challenging to understand and it can be hard to understand what concerns the tenant is raising.
The landlord said it has also received a number of complaints from [The neighbour] about the tenant and that this is a “tit for tat” situation. The landlord referred to an incident when the tenant left a note on [The neighbour’s] door the day after [The neighbour] asked the tenant what she was doing when the tenant was on communal land to the rear of [The neighbour’s] unit. When the tenant did not respond [The neighbour] told the tenant she was getting fat. The tenant’s note said: Stop verbally abusing me - if you do it again I will have you EVICTED just as I did with your lover ([Name suppressed]). There are laws today, you can’t use hate speech etc etc.
The landlord raised that currently other occupants at the complex are telling it that they see the tenant forcing interactions with [The neighbour] by (for example) following her down to the bin area and being on communal paths when [The neighbour] returns from being out.
The landlord says the conflict between the tenant and [The neighbour] is ongoing and that over the years it has not been one-sided.
The landlord’s evidence is that when it receives a complaint from the tenant it investigates what happens, which includes understanding how both parties see the interaction/incident and whether either party’s view can be substantiated.
Where allegations made by the tenant have been substantiated the landlord said it has issued a breach notice against [The neighbour]. The landlord says the same applies for substantiated complaints about the tenant.
Where complaints are not substantiated the landlord said a breach notice is not given, as if the notice was challenged it would not be able to defend its action.
The landlord said that as a result of the tenant’s complaints it has issued two breach notices to [The neighbour]. The first breach notice was issued on 14 August 2023 for verbal abuse that occurred in October 2022. The landlord said the complaint was historical before it was reported.
The second breach notice was issued on 23 March 2026 following the tenant’s complaint made on 18 March 2026 about the petition incident.
In addition to investigating the tenant’s complaints made by the tenant about [The neighbour] the landlord said it has taken the following actions: • suggested the tenant goes to the Police with the more serious complaints, including when the broom incident occurred. • suggested the tenant seeks assistance from Age Concern and Citizens Advice Bureau, and/or an advocate, • supplied the tenant with complaint forms • made repeated attempts to engage with both the tenant and [The neighbour] to resolve their differences, including giving them the opportunity to attend mediation • made offers to both tenants separately to transfer to another complex.
The landlord said it is looking for solutions. The landlord wants to work with the tenant and [The neighbour] to come to some form of an agreeable solution. Neither tenant wants to transfer from the complex, and the tenant does not want to attend a mediation with [The neighbour]. Has the landlord taken reasonable steps to ensure that [The neighbour] did not breach the tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy?
Section 45 sets out the landlord’s responsibilities, which include under s 45(1)(e) that the landlord must: take all reasonable steps to ensure that [The party] of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
The concept under s 45(1)(e) is aligned to the responsibility tenants have under section 40(2)(e) not to: cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants
In considering the tenant’s claim I need to first consider whether there has been interference by [The neighbour] with the reasonable, peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant.
While I am mindful that in considering this matter I have not heard from [The neighbour], I am satisfied that [The neighbour] has breached the tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy in taking the petition to other tenants in the complex. A tenant’s right to peace, comfort and privacy in their use of the premises embodies the concept of a tenant’s right to use the premises free from disturbance (peace), enjoy living in the premises (comfort) and be free from intrusion (privacy).
The concept of interference with a tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy was found by the District Court in Lucas v Patterson 1 to be a wider duty than a breach of quiet enjoyment. The Court found the phrase “in the use of the premises” is broad and captures events or behaviours that reasonably effect how the tenant feels about living in the property, but that it would not capture an event that related to something that did not affect use of the tenanted premises.
“Premises” in this context includes “facilities” 2 , so includes the right to quiet enjoyment in relation to all aspects of the tenanted property, including sheds, garage, lawns, and gardens. Here that would include communal paths. 1 Lucas v Patterson [2005] DCR 76
In relation to incidents the tenant has referred to other than the petition, there may have been times when [The neighbour] interfered with the tenant’s right to peace, comfort and privacy. However the evidence in front of me points to the fact that to these other incidents not being corroborated or substantiated 3 . Simply put, that means the tenants allegations of breach by [The neighbour] have not been sufficiently proven. It also raises concerns of “tit for tat” or retaliatory behaviour between the tenant and [The neighbour].
I say this based on what the landlord has said and provided in evidence, what the police have written in their reports and as the tenant has on two different occasions reacted to [The neighbour]’s action by putting a note on her door and one in her letterbox. I find it significant that the note the tenant put on [The neighbour’s] door in December 2025 said “ I will have you EVICTED just as I did with your ex lover ([Name suppressed])”, and that [The neighbour’s]’s petition in March 2026 was to have the tenant evicted.
The evidence presented clearly establishes that there is a personality clash between the tenant and [The neighbour]. The Tribunal has long held in relation to considering whether a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment has been breached that it “is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for a breach of this type” (Smith v Olmstead v Floris (TT/93/1404/AK)).
I turn now to the question of whether the landlord has taken all reasonable steps to ensure [The neighbour] does not cause or permit interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort or privacy in her use of the premises.
Based on the evidence presented I am satisfied that the landlord’s actions as described to me, establish that it has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that [The neighbour] does not cause interference with the tenant’s reasonable, comfort and privacy. I accept that the landlord has responded to the tenant’s complaints as they were raised and has attempted to find solutions to the issues that exist between the tenant and [The neighbour]. It has treated the tenant’s complaints with the seriousness they deserve.
The continuing problem is the breakdown in the relationship between the tenant and her neighbour [The neighbour]. As I have mentioned above it appears they are both engaging in tit for tat behaviour. I do not wish to minimise the effect of the behaviour on the tenant and I accept the tenant feels genuinely upset and hurt by her behaviour’s behaviour towards her. I consider [The neighbour’s] behaviour in circulating the petition particularly upsetting and hurtful, but the 2 See s 45(5), RTA 3 Except for the matter historically reported for which the landlord issued a breach notice in August 2023. landlord has used mechanisms available to it under the RTA by using a breach notice under s 56 to deal with this behaviour.
The continuing problem the tenant says she is having with [The neighbour] does not in itself establish a landlord breach. The mandatory duty of a landlord to take all reasonable steps is objective, which requires consideration of all the circumstances, hence my references to both tenants’ behaviours.
In making my finding that the landlord has not breached its responsibility under section 45(1)(e) I accept that it has issued breach notices to [The neighbour] where it is appropriate. That is, in situations where the landlord is satisfied that there is independent evidence available to corroborate the tenant’s complaint.
The tenant wants the Tribunal to order the landlord to issue a breach notice under section 40(2)(c) RTA. As set out in my findings above I am satisfied that the landlord has issued breach notices to [The neighbour] where appropriate and has otherwise responded to the tenant’s complaints as best it can. In relation to the petition incident the landlord had already done what the tenant was seeking.
The landlord is in a difficult position when it has two tenants who neighbour each other and their relationship has broken down. It must investigate each claim of quiet enjoyment, but in doing so, must keep an open mind. However, when there are corroborated or substantiated instances of breaches of quiet enjoyment it should consider the mechanisms it has in the RTA, these responses should be proportionate to behaviour, including: a. Issuing 14 day notices against the breaching party. If the landlord considers both parties to be in breach then it can issue both parties with a 14 day notice; b. If the breach is serious enough the landlord can issue a s56 notice to terminate. c. If a party threatens to or does assault a party, then an application should be made for termination. However, the Tribunal would expect evidence of the assault, or threat to assault, not simply a police notification. d. Consider the anti-social behaviour notices regime in the Act.
The tenant should also be mindful of her behaviour. Whilst I understand that living next to someone who you feel has wronged you, may be unpleasant and upsetting, it is a situation that many people not just in tenancy complexes find themselves in. I encourage the tenant not to engage with her neighbour and that if her neighbour acts in a threatening manner to her, to gather evidence and report it to her landlord like she has been doing. She should not take matters into her own hands, as this may result in action that jeopardises her own tenancy.
For the reasons set out above the tenant’s application is dismissed. Suppression
The Tribunal on its own initiative orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties and all identifying details relating to the tenancy including the tenancy address (see s 95A RTA).
In doing so I have had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest and consider there is limited public interest or value in having any details about the parties or the tenancy, including the tenancy address, published. Likewise [The neighbour’s] name is suppressed as there is no public benefit in having it published.
It is brought to the parties’ attention that suppression means that no one, including the parties, can discuss the names or the suppressed details of the tenancy with anyone else.

Reasons

[The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s] attended the hearing, which was held as an in-person hearing on 2 July 2026.

I apologise to the parties for the delay in issuing this decision. Background

The tenant claims that the landlord has not taken all reasonable steps to ensure that [The party] of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in her use of the premises. See section 45(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The tenant has asked the Tribunal to make an order that her landlord issues a breach notice against her neighbour and that the landlord relocates her neighbour, who is also a tenant of the landlord. The Tribunal cannot make an order that affects another person who is not a party to these proceedings. As an order to relocate the neighbour would affect that neighbour’s rights, it is simply not an order the Tribunal can make.

The Tribunal only deals with disputes between landlord and tenant, and cannot consider claims between tenants. Therefore the only orders that the Tribunal can make in this and other such applications is to: a. determine if the landlord has breached its obligations b. order compensation if the application includes such a claim.

The tenant confirmed at the hearing that she is not seeking compensation.

The tenancy is for a unit in a complex of around 27 units, for older tenants, usually aged 65+ years. The complex was previously owned and managed by [the Council] before it was managed by the landlord. All of the units’ occupants are tenants of the landlord.

The tenant and her husband’s tenancy commenced on 25 October 2010. Sadly the tenant’s husband passed away in 2016.

The tenant said that for at least the last four years she has had difficulties with her neighbour (“[The neighbour]”) who lives in the unit that is immediately behind her unit. She claims [The neighbour] displays anti-social behaviours towards her, and that her mental health has suffered as a result of [The neighbour’s] abusive and repetitive name calling, which she considers to be harassment. The tenant claims [The neighbour] is breaching her right to quiet enjoyment of her premises and that the landlord is not taking reasonable steps to stop this happening.

The tenant described [The neighbour’s] behaviours as including: •verbally abusing her, using vulgar and offensive language when she is gardening in her own garden and walking along communal paths in the complex; •threatening her physically, including threatening to hit her with a broom; •looks at her in an intimidating manner and demonstrating her dislike for her; •going door to door asking other tenants living in the complex to sign a petition to have her removed from the complex; •threatening to harm her cats

The tenant provided an email she sent to the landlord on 5 May 2026 in support of her assertions. The email contains a list that the tenant described as “all of [The neighbour’s] abuse toward me”. The list includes: a. verbal abuse, consisting of phrases [The neighbour] has said to her: You are a fucken bitch You are a bitch You are a piece of shit You haven’t a decent bone in your body You don’t belong here. b. emotional abuse, that [The neighbour] told her that she had had an affair with her husband while she was grieving c. threatening and other actions:  threatening to: strike her with a broom; hit her over the head with a pot; kill her two cats;  turning the hose on her twice;  trespassing her twice;  asking other tenants in the complex to sign a petition to have her removed.

The tenant said she has followed the landlord’s policies by filing her complaints on the landlord’s complaints form on many occasions, but that the landlord’s response is usually the same: that they have investigated the complaint, spoken to [The neighbour] and actions have been taken.

The tenant believes the landlord is not taking her complaints seriously and as a result [The neighbour’s] harassment of her continues. She believes that after 4 years the landlord has not put effective measures in place to stop [The neighbour’s] anti-social behaviours, and that it is apparent she will never have the reasonable peace and comfort that is her entitlement while [The neighbour] is her neighbour.

The tenant said she took the landlord’s advice and has gone to the Police over various of [The neighbour’s] behaviours. The tenant provided 6 police reports she has made about incidents involving [The neighbour] which occurred between May 2019 and March 2026. The incidents reported include: - May 2019: [The neighbour] threatening to strike the tenant with a broom. The police report records from their investigation “no assault has occurred”, it is “a matter of neighbours at war where one party has potentially embellished the situation” and that the tenant advised them after the event that the matter had been resolved. In the report there was reference to the tenant telling the police that previously [The neighbour] had threatened to kill her animals. - October 2022: [The neighbour] threatening to hit the tenant over the head with a pot following a verbal altercation between them, when the tenant told a plumber to remove soil he had put into a communal wheelbarrow when doing plumbing work in [The neighbour’s] garden. The report records [The neighbour] has issued a trespass notice on the tenant. - August 2023: [The neighbour] reported that the tenant had been on her property in breach of the trespass notice. The Police reported following their investigation that it is possible the tenant had not been on [The neighbour’s] property and confirmed to the tenant that the trespass notice was still valid ( the tenant had believed it was not). The tenant told the police [The neighbour] swears at her and calls her “a bitch” without provocation. - September 2023: the tenant complained [The neighbour] is “continuing to make her life hell”, and that every time she goes outside [The neighbour] calls her “a fuckin bitch”. The police report records that “The landlord needs to move one of them to a different flat, and has indicated they have the ability to do that”, and that this does “not presently warrant any further Police intervention”. - January 2026: the tenant reported harassment from [The neighbour], and that she has recently taken photos of her while she was in her garden. The report records [The neighbour] served a further trespass notice on the tenant on 8 January 2026. - March 2026: the tenant reported [The neighbour] had gone door to door to other units in the complex with a petition stating that she is harassing [The neighbour] and that [The neighbour] wants her removed from the complex (referred to as “the petition incident”).

The landlord agrees that there is ongoing conflict between the tenant and [The neighbour]. The landlord says each time the tenant makes a complaint the landlord investigates the complaint and responds to the tenant.

The landlord says that mainly the tenant’s complaints about [The neighbour] involve interactions that are not substantiated, for example by independent evidence from a third party. When they investigate and ask [The neighbour] what has happened, they hear a different story and view to the tenant’s, and that leaves them in a position where they have no clear understanding of what has happened or been said.

Essentially, the landlord is saying that the only evidence usually available is “he said, she said” evidence. An example given was that the landlord does not recall the tenant complaining that [The neighbour] said any of the phrases set out in her 5 May 2026 email except “you are a piece of shit”. When [The neighbour] was asked about this, she denied using those words but accepted she had said something else inappropriate to the tenant. There was no corroborating evidence of what was said available to the landlord.

The landlord said it frequently receive emails from the tenant, citing over 110 emails sent to the landlord’s team leader in the year ending early August 2026. The landlord said some of the emails are challenging to understand and it can be hard to understand what concerns the tenant is raising.

The landlord said it has also received a number of complaints from [The neighbour] about the tenant and that this is a “tit for tat” situation. The landlord referred to an incident when the tenant left a note on [The neighbour’s] door the day after [The neighbour] asked the tenant what she was doing when the tenant was on communal land to the rear of [The neighbour’s] unit. When the tenant did not respond [The neighbour] told the tenant she was getting fat. The tenant’s note said: Stop verbally abusing me - if you do it again I will have you EVICTED just as I did with your lover ([Name suppressed]). There are laws today, you can’t use hate speech etc etc.

The landlord raised that currently other occupants at the complex are telling it that they see the tenant forcing interactions with [The neighbour] by (for example) following her down to the bin area and being on communal paths when [The neighbour] returns from being out.

The landlord says the conflict between the tenant and [The neighbour] is ongoing and that over the years it has not been one-sided.

The landlord’s evidence is that when it receives a complaint from the tenant it investigates what happens, which includes understanding how both parties see the interaction/incident and whether either party’s view can be substantiated.

Where allegations made by the tenant have been substantiated the landlord said it has issued a breach notice against [The neighbour]. The landlord says the same applies for substantiated complaints about the tenant.

Where complaints are not substantiated the landlord said a breach notice is not given, as if the notice was challenged it would not be able to defend its action.

The landlord said that as a result of the tenant’s complaints it has issued two breach notices to [The neighbour]. The first breach notice was issued on 14 August 2023 for verbal abuse that occurred in October 2022. The landlord said the complaint was historical before it was reported.

The second breach notice was issued on 23 March 2026 following the tenant’s complaint made on 18 March 2026 about the petition incident.

In addition to investigating the tenant’s complaints made by the tenant about [The neighbour] the landlord said it has taken the following actions: • suggested the tenant goes to the Police with the more serious complaints, including when the broom incident occurred. • suggested the tenant seeks assistance from Age Concern and Citizens Advice Bureau, and/or an advocate, • supplied the tenant with complaint forms • made repeated attempts to engage with both the tenant and [The neighbour] to resolve their differences, including giving them the opportunity to attend mediation • made offers to both tenants separately to transfer to another complex.

The landlord said it is looking for solutions. The landlord wants to work with the tenant and [The neighbour] to come to some form of an agreeable solution. Neither tenant wants to transfer from the complex, and the tenant does not want to attend a mediation with [The neighbour]. Has the landlord taken reasonable steps to ensure that [The neighbour] did not breach the tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy?

Section 45 sets out the landlord’s responsibilities, which include under s 45(1)(e) that the landlord must: take all reasonable steps to ensure that [The party] of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.

The concept under s 45(1)(e) is aligned to the responsibility tenants have under section 40(2)(e) not to: cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants

In considering the tenant’s claim I need to first consider whether there has been interference by [The neighbour] with the reasonable, peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant.

While I am mindful that in considering this matter I have not heard from [The neighbour], I am satisfied that [The neighbour] has breached the tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy in taking the petition to other tenants in the complex. A tenant’s right to peace, comfort and privacy in their use of the premises embodies the concept of a tenant’s right to use the premises free from disturbance (peace), enjoy living in the premises (comfort) and be free from intrusion (privacy).

The concept of interference with a tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy was found by the District Court in Lucas v Patterson 1 to be a wider duty than a breach of quiet enjoyment. The Court found the phrase “in the use of the premises” is broad and captures events or behaviours that reasonably effect how the tenant feels about living in the property, but that it would not capture an event that related to something that did not affect use of the tenanted premises.

“Premises” in this context includes “facilities” 2 , so includes the right to quiet enjoyment in relation to all aspects of the tenanted property, including sheds, garage, lawns, and gardens. Here that would include communal paths. 1 Lucas v Patterson [2005] DCR 76

In relation to incidents the tenant has referred to other than the petition, there may have been times when [The neighbour] interfered with the tenant’s right to peace, comfort and privacy. However the evidence in front of me points to the fact that to these other incidents not being corroborated or substantiated 3 . Simply put, that means the tenants allegations of breach by [The neighbour] have not been sufficiently proven. It also raises concerns of “tit for tat” or retaliatory behaviour between the tenant and [The neighbour].

I say this based on what the landlord has said and provided in evidence, what the police have written in their reports and as the tenant has on two different occasions reacted to [The neighbour]’s action by putting a note on her door and one in her letterbox. I find it significant that the note the tenant put on [The neighbour’s] door in December 2025 said “ I will have you EVICTED just as I did with your ex lover ([Name suppressed])”, and that [The neighbour’s]’s petition in March 2026 was to have the tenant evicted.

The evidence presented clearly establishes that there is a personality clash between the tenant and [The neighbour]. The Tribunal has long held in relation to considering whether a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment has been breached that it “is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for a breach of this type” (Smith v Olmstead v Floris (TT/93/1404/AK)).

I turn now to the question of whether the landlord has taken all reasonable steps to ensure [The neighbour] does not cause or permit interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort or privacy in her use of the premises.

Based on the evidence presented I am satisfied that the landlord’s actions as described to me, establish that it has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that [The neighbour] does not cause interference with the tenant’s reasonable, comfort and privacy. I accept that the landlord has responded to the tenant’s complaints as they were raised and has attempted to find solutions to the issues that exist between the tenant and [The neighbour]. It has treated the tenant’s complaints with the seriousness they deserve.

The continuing problem is the breakdown in the relationship between the tenant and her neighbour [The neighbour]. As I have mentioned above it appears they are both engaging in tit for tat behaviour. I do not wish to minimise the effect of the behaviour on the tenant and I accept the tenant feels genuinely upset and hurt by her behaviour’s behaviour towards her. I consider [The neighbour’s] behaviour in circulating the petition particularly upsetting and hurtful, but the 2 See s 45(5), RTA 3 Except for the matter historically reported for which the landlord issued a breach notice in August 2023. landlord has used mechanisms available to it under the RTA by using a breach notice under s 56 to deal with this behaviour.

The continuing problem the tenant says she is having with [The neighbour] does not in itself establish a landlord breach. The mandatory duty of a landlord to take all reasonable steps is objective, which requires consideration of all the circumstances, hence my references to both tenants’ behaviours.

In making my finding that the landlord has not breached its responsibility under section 45(1)(e) I accept that it has issued breach notices to [The neighbour] where it is appropriate. That is, in situations where the landlord is satisfied that there is independent evidence available to corroborate the tenant’s complaint.

The tenant wants the Tribunal to order the landlord to issue a breach notice under section 40(2)(c) RTA. As set out in my findings above I am satisfied that the landlord has issued breach notices to [The neighbour] where appropriate and has otherwise responded to the tenant’s complaints as best it can. In relation to the petition incident the landlord had already done what the tenant was seeking.

The landlord is in a difficult position when it has two tenants who neighbour each other and their relationship has broken down. It must investigate each claim of quiet enjoyment, but in doing so, must keep an open mind. However, when there are corroborated or substantiated instances of breaches of quiet enjoyment it should consider the mechanisms it has in the RTA, these responses should be proportionate to behaviour, including: a. Issuing 14 day notices against the breaching party. If the landlord considers both parties to be in breach then it can issue both parties with a 14 day notice; b. If the breach is serious enough the landlord can issue a s56 notice to terminate. c. If a party threatens to or does assault a party, then an application should be made for termination. However, the Tribunal would expect evidence of the assault, or threat to assault, not simply a police notification. d. Consider the anti-social behaviour notices regime in the Act.

The tenant should also be mindful of her behaviour. Whilst I understand that living next to someone who you feel has wronged you, may be unpleasant and upsetting, it is a situation that many people not just in tenancy complexes find themselves in. I encourage the tenant not to engage with her neighbour and that if her neighbour acts in a threatening manner to her, to gather evidence and report it to her landlord like she has been doing. She should not take matters into her own hands, as this may result in action that jeopardises her own tenancy.

For the reasons set out above the tenant’s application is dismissed. Suppression

The Tribunal on its own initiative orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties and all identifying details relating to the tenancy including the tenancy address (see s 95A RTA).

In doing so I have had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest and consider there is limited public interest or value in having any details about the parties or the tenancy, including the tenancy address, published. Likewise [The neighbour’s] name is suppressed as there is no public benefit in having it published.

It is brought to the parties’ attention that suppression means that no one, including the parties, can discuss the names or the suppressed details of the tenancy with anyone else.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5518291 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5518291 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.