Tenancy Terminated Due to Anti-Social Behaviour
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ended a tenant's lease because of repeated anti-social behavior, such as yelling, slamming doors, and verbal abuse, after the landlord showed proof of three incidents within 90 days.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant's tenancy can be terminated if they engage in anti-social behaviour.
📖 What the law says
This rule allows a tenant to ask the Tenancy Tribunal to cancel a notice ending their tenancy if they believe the landlord gave the notice because the tenant complained or used their rights as a tenant. The tenant must apply to the Tribunal within 14 working days of receiving the notice.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal terminated the tenancy due to anti-social behaviour.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal terminated the tenancy of a tenant due to repeated anti-social behaviour, including yelling, slamming doors, and verbal abuse, after the landlord provided evidence of three incidents within a 90-day period.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5162853 1
[2025] NZTT 5162853
TENANCY TRIBUNAL -
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610
ORDER
1. The tenancy of [NAME] at [ADDRESS], Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to [COMPANY], at 1pm 4 March 2025.
Reasons:
1. Only the landlord attended the hearing. Calls to the tenant went straight to voice mail.
2. This was a period tenancy, which commenced on 13 June 2023. The tenant was the only legal occupant but her partner (with whom she appears to have fought occasionally) has sometimes occupied the property with her.
3. The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.
4. The landlord submits that [ADDRESS] is a short cul-de-sac of mostly privately owned homes. 13 and [ADDRESS] are owned and tenanted by [NAME]. The housing in the area is characterised by small homes on tiny sections.
5. The premises in the street are therefore all in close proximity. Noise travels easily.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5162853 2
6. The landlord gave evidence that the police have been called out to these premises 72 times and that on 66 of those occasions, the tenant has been listed as the victim.
7. 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.
8. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) 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.
9. I am satisfied that three notices have all been given within a 90 day time frame and that they comply with the requirements above.
10. The landlord has records of 25 complaints from various neighbours and occupants within the street in connection with disruptive behaviour at the premises since the commencement of the tenancy.
11. The three incidents the subject of this application occurred on 25 November 2024, 6 December 2024 and 17 January 2025. According to the landlord, details of each incident are as follows:
(a) The first 55A notice was issued 28 November 2024 in response to an incident on 25 November 2024. On 25 November at approximately 5.35pm [NAME] could be heard yelling and swearing in the front of her home. [NAME] was swearing and yelling at her neighbour whilst throwing things at her fence. She
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5162853 3
then started striking her front door and window of her property with a shovel, breaking the glass. Police were called to the incident.
(b) The second 55A notice was issued 16 December 2024 in response to an incident on 6 December 2024. On Friday 6 December at between about 6.45pm and 10pm [NAME] could be heard slamming doors, screaming and yelling and yelling at another occupant of the premises, [NAME]. Police attended the incident; [NAME] had left the property before the Police arrived.
(c) The third 55A notice was issued on 12 February 2025 in response to an incident on 17 January 2025. On 17 January about 3pm [NAME] could be heard engaged in a loud altercation with another occupant of the premises. [NAME] could be heard screaming, yelling, verbally abusing the other person and slamming doors.
12. I am satisfied after hearing from the landlord that each of these events took place and that the notices were duly sent. I note that [NAME] has not challenged any of the notices and has not appeared today to challenge the application.
13. 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 RTA, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
14. 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. The landlord has been careful to understand their obligations under the RTA, to compile the required evidence, and to act in the interests of the close-knit community in seeking these orders.
15. I make orders terminating the tenancy.
Non-Publication and suppression
16. The landlord has sought an order for suppression of the tenant’s name.
17. The grounds advanced are essentially the likely prejudice to the tenant’s mental health in the event of an adverse decision being associated with her name.
18. Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of any party that has wholly or substantially succeeded
1 [NAME]
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5162853 4
make an order that the decision not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
19. Section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name of any party not be published.
20. The tenant has not made any application for suppression of her name but the terms of Section 95A(4) allow an application to be made by another party to the proceeding.
21. The landlord has provided no corroborative evidence supporting the assertion of likely prejudice to the tenant, or developed any submission as to why it is in the public interest for there to be an order for suppression of the tenant’s name.
22. I therefore decline to make any order for suppression or non-publication.
[NAME]
25 February 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5162853 5
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5162853 6
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord provided evidence of three incidents of anti-social behavior within a 90-day period.
- Each incident involved yelling, screaming, and causing disturbances that alarmed neighbors.
- The landlord gave written notices to the tenant detailing each incident and the tenant's right to challenge.
- The landlord's application to terminate the tenancy was made within 28 days of the third notice.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant did not attend the hearing to challenge the application.
- The landlord complied with all statutory requirements for terminating a tenancy due to anti-social behavior.
- The Tribunal found no reason to suppress the tenant's name despite the landlord's request.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal decided to terminate the tenant's tenancy due to repeated anti-social behavior.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant's behavior constituted anti-social behavior that warranted termination of the tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to terminate the tenancy because the landlord provided evidence of three incidents of anti-social behavior within a 90-day period.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 54 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the landlord's evidence showing three incidents of anti-social behavior within a 90-day period.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might face termination of their tenancy if they engage in repeated anti-social behavior.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included records of complaints from neighbors and occupants, and police calls related to the incidents.