What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5546237 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 5546237?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5546237?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5546237?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14054861-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5546237 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 5546237?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5546237?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5546237?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14054861-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5546237 — 14-day notice

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

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The tenant was represented by his mother at the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 24 May 2025 and is current.
The tenant resides in a 28-unit complex operated by the landlord. The units are all tenanted by the landlord’s tenants. The tenant lives at unit 18 (“the tenant’s unit”)
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the following grounds; • Anti-social behaviour from the tenant (s.55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”); and • Termination of the tenancy for a breach of the tenancy agreement or the RTA which is incapable of remedy (s.56 RTA). Anti-Social Behaviour
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is as follows; First notice
The first notice is dated 22 May 2026 and relates to an incident on 21 May 2026 at 9.00 am.
A plumber employed by the landlord was at the complex to carry out work. The work was not at the tenant’s unit. The plan of the complex provided by the landlord indicates that the plumber was some distance from the tenant’s unit.
The plumber said that he was at his van getting some tools out when he heard what he thought was a bottle smash on the ground behind him. The plumber turned around from his van and saw a male in the car park. The male yelled “what the fuck are you looking at?
The male started walking towards the plumber. The plumber was concerned and started putting his tools away and got into the driver's seat of his van. The male came up to the driver's window and said “you better leave. I’m telling OCHT.” The male walked to the doorway of unit 18.
The plumber did not feel safe and decided to leave the complex. As the unit that the plumber had been working on was still unlocked, the plumber walked back to the unit. The plumber walked around a back way to the back door of the unit so that the male that he had seen could not see him. The plumber locked the unit and started heading back to his van to leave. The male approached him again and said, “I’m from the Whittaker family, I know your face, watch your back.”
As the plumber went to leave, he saw the male go into unit 18 of the complex. The plumber has been shown a plan of the complex and confirmed that it was unit 18.
The first notice was served on the tenant at 2.20 pm on 22 May 2026. Second notice
The second notice is dated 29 May 2026. It relates to an incident that occurred at 12.40 pm on 21 May 2026.
The landlord contacted the tenant by telephone to discuss a cup that had been smashed by the tenant. During the course of the conversation the tenant threatened to smash up his unit. A recording of the conversation was provided.
The second notice was served on the tenant on 29 May 2026 at 4.10 pm. Third notice
The third notice is dated 24 June 2026. It relates to an incident on 24 June 2026 at 9.15 am.
The landlord’s staff had given the tenant notice of their intention to come to the tenant’s unit to carry out repairs. The landlord’ staff and a contractor were joined by a security guard as the landlord had concerns given the tenant’s previous behaviour for their safety. The tenant’s father was also present.
The tenant became agitated. His father attempted to calm the tenant. The tenant began abusing his father. His father left the unit.
The tenant commenced swearing and abusing the staff member, contractor and security guard. At this point, the staff member became concerned for their safety and asked the contractor to leave with her through the back door. A short time later, the tenant came outside and continued confronting and challenging both the staff and contractor.
The tenant’s evidence was essentially that the landlord’s evidence set out above was correct. The tenant said that during the course of the meeting on 24 June 2026, he had asked the visitors to leave his unit on three occasions before matters got out of hand. That may be correct, but the landlord, having given the appropriate notice to the tenant, was entitled to be present to carry out repairs.
The parents of the tenant explained in detail the mental health difficulties that the tenant has on an ongoing basis. Despite being 21 years old, he has a cognitive age of 12 years. He has a range of debilitating mental health issues.
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.
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.
Under s 55A (3) RTA, 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 incident occurred at 12.40 pm on 21 May 2026, before the first notice anti-social behaviour had been served . The first notice was served at 2.20 pm on 22 May 2026.
The purpose of being delivered a notice which expressly sets out the requirements in s 55A(2)(b) RTA is so that the tenant has the ability to apply to the Tribunal for orders challenging the notice or to otherwise seek to correct the alleged anti-social behaviour. Otherwise, a landlord could deliver three notices on the same day, for three separate earlier events, all taking place on different days, and the tenant has had no opportunity to correct their behaviour.
I am of the view the tenant did not have the effective right to challenge the first notice or alter his behaviour prior to the second incident. I therefore find that it would be unfair to terminate under s 55A RTA.
I consider it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the notices were given. The application under s.55A RTA is dismissed. 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 s 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 to remedy the breach, although the Tribunal may consider whether a warning should have been given when determining whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. A breach is not capable of remedy when the thing done, 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 breaches before me are essentially those referred to in the anti-social behaviour notices. The conduct is swearing, abusing, aggressive behaviour and a threat to cause damage.
Some disruptive behaviour can be stopped and the peace restored. Whether a specific breach can be remedied depends heavily on the severity, frequency, and nature of the actions and behaviour of the tenant.
A breach is considered capable of remedy if the action or its ongoing effect can be halted or undone. Common examples include excessive noise such as playing loud music or hosting disruptive parties, and controllable nuisances such as allowing guests or pets to cause a temporary disturbance.
On the other hand, physical violence or threats of physical violence, assault and threats of assault, abusing, or explicitly threatening a neighbour, intentional, prolonged actions targeting a specific neighbour that create ongoing safety fears or psychological distress would not be capable of remedy.
In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd [2004] RTHNZ 22, Keane J ruled, in relation to an application made under s. 55 RTA, that an assault or threat of assault is an irreversible event. Keane J accepted HNZ's analysis that a threat to assault can never be remedied to the following extent: [37] A threat once made, or an assault once committed, cannot be remedied. But I am loathe to conclude that, once the Tribunal finds as a fact a threat or an assault, the discretion becomes spent. That could mean that a technical assault, or words in haste, could pre-empt the Tribunal from considering the two remaining issues s 55(2) presents, which are of equal significance. [38] I prefer the interpretation that, if the breach cannot be remedied, that issue is to be set to one side and the Tribunal is to consider the two remaining issues. There may well be cases where the Tribunal concludes, despite the fact of breach, the landlord can be compensated for any loss, and there is unlikely to be any further breach. The Tribunal might then well be justified in deciding to refuse to make the otherwise mandatory order.
In Clarke v Housing New Zealand DC Blenheim CIV-2008-006-33, 19 March 2008, Judge Zohrab held that a breach of a negative requirement is incapable of remedy. Like the negative requirement of the tenant not to commit an unlawful act on the property in Clarke, this case before me involves a negative requirement on the tenant not to abuse, threaten or threaten to cause damage.
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: a.The history of the tenancy. b.Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c.Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d.Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e.The conduct of the landlord. f.The gravity of the breach. g.Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
For there to be a breach of the tenancy agreement or the RTA, I have to be satisfied that; (a) There has been a breach of the tenancy agreement or the RTA. (b) If the breach was capable of remedy, the requirements of s.56(1)(b) RTA had been complied with; and (c) If the breach were not capable of remedy, the breach was of such a nature or such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order to make Infinity.
The witness statements are not substantially disputed by the tenant.
Whilst I have found that the anti-social behaviour notices that were issued do not meet the salient requirements of s.55A (3)(a) RTA, I consider the contents of the notices are relevant to my enquiry. I do not intend to repeat the content.
I find that there has been a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant.
The breach was not capable of remedy.
The factors in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management (supra) are considered as follows; History of the tenancy The tenancy is relatively short having commenced on 24 May 2025. There have been a range of negative issues with the tenant. Has there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings The evidence indicates that the tenant has not complied with the warnings given. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely that the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. But for the offer by the tenant's father to remove the tenant on those occasions when the landlord and or their contractors may require access to the tenants unit I would not have been satisfied that the tenant would be likely to comply with his obligations in the future. That offer provides the Tribunal with some confidence. Were the breaches inadvertent or deliberate. The evidence makes it clear that the breaches were deliberate. Conduct of the landlord The conduct of the landlord and their staff cannot be impeached. Gravity of the breach and whether termination of the tenancy is a proportionate response. [The party] of the breaches involve violence or a specific threat of violence. The tenant’s behaviour will have been unsettling for the landlord and their contractors. It was anti-social behaviour.
Weighing the relevant factors, ultimately and by a fine margin, I find that the gravity of the breach was at the lower end of the scale and that termination of the tenancy would not be a proportionate response.
The tenant should be under no illusion, that a repeat of this type of behaviour will inevitably result in the landlord filing a further application with the Tribunal. If that were to occur, the landlord should refer the Adjudicator hearing the matter to this order.
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Neither party applied for name suppression. Section 95A(4) RTA provides the Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name of any party not be published. In light of the medical evidence provided during the course of the hearing, the name and details of the tenant are suppressed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.

The tenant was represented by his mother at the hearing.

The tenancy commenced on 24 May 2025 and is current.

The tenant resides in a 28-unit complex operated by the landlord. The units are all tenanted by the landlord’s tenants. The tenant lives at unit 18 (“the tenant’s unit”)

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the following grounds; • Anti-social behaviour from the tenant (s.55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”); and • Termination of the tenancy for a breach of the tenancy agreement or the RTA which is incapable of remedy (s.56 RTA). Anti-Social Behaviour

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is as follows; First notice

The first notice is dated 22 May 2026 and relates to an incident on 21 May 2026 at 9.00 am.

A plumber employed by the landlord was at the complex to carry out work. The work was not at the tenant’s unit. The plan of the complex provided by the landlord indicates that the plumber was some distance from the tenant’s unit.

The plumber said that he was at his van getting some tools out when he heard what he thought was a bottle smash on the ground behind him. The plumber turned around from his van and saw a male in the car park. The male yelled “what the fuck are you looking at?

The male started walking towards the plumber. The plumber was concerned and started putting his tools away and got into the driver's seat of his van. The male came up to the driver's window and said “you better leave. I’m telling OCHT.” The male walked to the doorway of unit 18.

The plumber did not feel safe and decided to leave the complex. As the unit that the plumber had been working on was still unlocked, the plumber walked back to the unit. The plumber walked around a back way to the back door of the unit so that the male that he had seen could not see him. The plumber locked the unit and started heading back to his van to leave. The male approached him again and said, “I’m from the Whittaker family, I know your face, watch your back.”

As the plumber went to leave, he saw the male go into unit 18 of the complex. The plumber has been shown a plan of the complex and confirmed that it was unit 18.

The first notice was served on the tenant at 2.20 pm on 22 May 2026. Second notice

The second notice is dated 29 May 2026. It relates to an incident that occurred at 12.40 pm on 21 May 2026.

The landlord contacted the tenant by telephone to discuss a cup that had been smashed by the tenant. During the course of the conversation the tenant threatened to smash up his unit. A recording of the conversation was provided.

The second notice was served on the tenant on 29 May 2026 at 4.10 pm. Third notice

The third notice is dated 24 June 2026. It relates to an incident on 24 June 2026 at 9.15 am.

The landlord’s staff had given the tenant notice of their intention to come to the tenant’s unit to carry out repairs. The landlord’ staff and a contractor were joined by a security guard as the landlord had concerns given the tenant’s previous behaviour for their safety. The tenant’s father was also present.

The tenant became agitated. His father attempted to calm the tenant. The tenant began abusing his father. His father left the unit.

The tenant commenced swearing and abusing the staff member, contractor and security guard. At this point, the staff member became concerned for their safety and asked the contractor to leave with her through the back door. A short time later, the tenant came outside and continued confronting and challenging both the staff and contractor.

The tenant’s evidence was essentially that the landlord’s evidence set out above was correct. The tenant said that during the course of the meeting on 24 June 2026, he had asked the visitors to leave his unit on three occasions before matters got out of hand. That may be correct, but the landlord, having given the appropriate notice to the tenant, was entitled to be present to carry out repairs.

The parents of the tenant explained in detail the mental health difficulties that the tenant has on an ongoing basis. Despite being 21 years old, he has a cognitive age of 12 years. He has a range of debilitating mental health issues.

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.

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.

Under s 55A (3) RTA, 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 incident occurred at 12.40 pm on 21 May 2026, before the first notice anti-social behaviour had been served . The first notice was served at 2.20 pm on 22 May 2026.

The purpose of being delivered a notice which expressly sets out the requirements in s 55A(2)(b) RTA is so that the tenant has the ability to apply to the Tribunal for orders challenging the notice or to otherwise seek to correct the alleged anti-social behaviour. Otherwise, a landlord could deliver three notices on the same day, for three separate earlier events, all taking place on different days, and the tenant has had no opportunity to correct their behaviour.

I am of the view the tenant did not have the effective right to challenge the first notice or alter his behaviour prior to the second incident. I therefore find that it would be unfair to terminate under s 55A RTA.

I consider it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the notices were given. The application under s.55A RTA is dismissed. 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 s 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 to remedy the breach, although the Tribunal may consider whether a warning should have been given when determining whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. A breach is not capable of remedy when the thing done, 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 breaches before me are essentially those referred to in the anti-social behaviour notices. The conduct is swearing, abusing, aggressive behaviour and a threat to cause damage.

Some disruptive behaviour can be stopped and the peace restored. Whether a specific breach can be remedied depends heavily on the severity, frequency, and nature of the actions and behaviour of the tenant.

A breach is considered capable of remedy if the action or its ongoing effect can be halted or undone. Common examples include excessive noise such as playing loud music or hosting disruptive parties, and controllable nuisances such as allowing guests or pets to cause a temporary disturbance.

On the other hand, physical violence or threats of physical violence, assault and threats of assault, abusing, or explicitly threatening a neighbour, intentional, prolonged actions targeting a specific neighbour that create ongoing safety fears or psychological distress would not be capable of remedy.

In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd [2004] RTHNZ 22, Keane J ruled, in relation to an application made under s. 55 RTA, that an assault or threat of assault is an irreversible event. Keane J accepted HNZ's analysis that a threat to assault can never be remedied to the following extent: [37] A threat once made, or an assault once committed, cannot be remedied. But I am loathe to conclude that, once the Tribunal finds as a fact a threat or an assault, the discretion becomes spent. That could mean that a technical assault, or words in haste, could pre-empt the Tribunal from considering the two remaining issues s 55(2) presents, which are of equal significance. [38] I prefer the interpretation that, if the breach cannot be remedied, that issue is to be set to one side and the Tribunal is to consider the two remaining issues. There may well be cases where the Tribunal concludes, despite the fact of breach, the landlord can be compensated for any loss, and there is unlikely to be any further breach. The Tribunal might then well be justified in deciding to refuse to make the otherwise mandatory order.

In Clarke v Housing New Zealand DC Blenheim CIV-2008-006-33, 19 March 2008, Judge Zohrab held that a breach of a negative requirement is incapable of remedy. Like the negative requirement of the tenant not to commit an unlawful act on the property in Clarke, this case before me involves a negative requirement on the tenant not to abuse, threaten or threaten to cause damage.

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: a.The history of the tenancy. b.Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c.Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d.Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e.The conduct of the landlord. f.The gravity of the breach. g.Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

For there to be a breach of the tenancy agreement or the RTA, I have to be satisfied that; (a) There has been a breach of the tenancy agreement or the RTA. (b) If the breach was capable of remedy, the requirements of s.56(1)(b) RTA had been complied with; and (c) If the breach were not capable of remedy, the breach was of such a nature or such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order to make Infinity.

The witness statements are not substantially disputed by the tenant.

Whilst I have found that the anti-social behaviour notices that were issued do not meet the salient requirements of s.55A (3)(a) RTA, I consider the contents of the notices are relevant to my enquiry. I do not intend to repeat the content.

I find that there has been a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant.

The breach was not capable of remedy.

The factors in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management (supra) are considered as follows; History of the tenancy The tenancy is relatively short having commenced on 24 May 2025. There have been a range of negative issues with the tenant. Has there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings The evidence indicates that the tenant has not complied with the warnings given. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely that the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. But for the offer by the tenant's father to remove the tenant on those occasions when the landlord and or their contractors may require access to the tenants unit I would not have been satisfied that the tenant would be likely to comply with his obligations in the future. That offer provides the Tribunal with some confidence. Were the breaches inadvertent or deliberate. The evidence makes it clear that the breaches were deliberate. Conduct of the landlord The conduct of the landlord and their staff cannot be impeached. Gravity of the breach and whether termination of the tenancy is a proportionate response. [The party] of the breaches involve violence or a specific threat of violence. The tenant’s behaviour will have been unsettling for the landlord and their contractors. It was anti-social behaviour.

Weighing the relevant factors, ultimately and by a fine margin, I find that the gravity of the breach was at the lower end of the scale and that termination of the tenancy would not be a proportionate response.

The tenant should be under no illusion, that a repeat of this type of behaviour will inevitably result in the landlord filing a further application with the Tribunal. If that were to occur, the landlord should refer the Adjudicator hearing the matter to this order.

I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Neither party applied for name suppression. Section 95A(4) RTA provides the Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name of any party not be published. In light of the medical evidence provided during the course of the hearing, the name and details of the tenant are suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5546237 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5546237 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.