Tenancy Tribunal Rules Anti-Social Behaviour Ground Not Applicable to Fixed-Term Tenancies
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a landlord's request to end a fixed-term tenancy due to alleged anti-social behavior by the tenant. The Tribunal stated that it does not have the authority to consider such claims for fixed-term tenancies.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord cannot use the anti-social behaviour provisions of the Act for fixed-term tenancies.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application due to lack of jurisdiction for fixed-term tenancies.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a landlord's application to terminate a fixed-term tenancy based on alleged anti-social behaviour by the tenant. The Tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to consider such claims under fixed-term agreements.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5184654 1
[2025] NZTT 5184654
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [Tenancy address suppressed]
ORDER
1. An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ names and identifying details.
2. The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Only the landlords’ representatives attended the hearing.
2. The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant had a dog at the premises without the landlord’s consent and that the tenant has engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy.
3. The landlord withdrew the claim based on the tenant having a dog without consent. It seems that the tenant removed the dog within the 14 days as required by the breach notice.
4. The anti-social behaviour ground (s55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)) does not apply to fixed term tenancies and because this is a fixed term tenancy, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider an application on that ground.
5. The application must therefore be dismissed. But dismissing the application is unlikely to make the problems underlying this application go away. I will
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5184654 2
therefore make some general comments about the case which may assist the parties.
6. The landlords cannot use the anti-social behaviour provisions of the Act for as long as the tenancy is for a fixed term. But they can use s56 of the Act to seek termination of the tenancy where there has been a breach of the Act or the tenancy agreement by a tenant.
7. This case concerns a house that has been converted into two flats, front and rear. There is a driveway down the side of the house which has a gate on it. The rear tenants and their visitors use the driveway to access their flat and park their cars. The tenant and her visitors use the front portion of the driveway to access the parking area in front of her flat. There is no garden area attached to the flat.
8. One of the complaints is that the rear tenants have made to the landlord is that the tenant or her visitors have been parking in the driveway preventing them from using it. Another is that the tenant has been closing the gate, often repeatedly during the day and at night. The nighttime closing is particularly problematic because the gate is difficult to see in the dark.
9. Section 40(2)(c) of the Act provides that a tenant must not cause or permit interference with the peace, comfort or privacy of other tenants in their use of their premises. Failing to stop a visitor from doing so constitutes permitting it.
10. I can see no justification for the tenant or her visitors parking in the driveway. I would regard that as a breach of the Act.
11. I can see very little justification for closing the gate and certainly not for closing it repeatedly or at night. The tenant has children and if they are outside and cannot be trusted to remain on the property, they should be supervised. I note that the gate is low, and a child could easily climb over it.
12. Unless tenant changes her ways, I can see the landlords coming back to this Tribunal seeking to terminate this tenancy. The outcome of another application may well be different from the outcome today.
[NAME] 24 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5184654 3
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5184654 4
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 tenancy is a fixed-term tenancy.
- The landlord cannot use the anti-social behaviour provisions of the Act for fixed-term tenancies.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant or her visitors parking in the driveway is considered a breach of the Act.
- Closing the gate repeatedly or at night is seen as problematic behavior.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application to terminate the fixed-term tenancy based on anti-social behavior allegations.
What was the dispute about?
The landlord wanted to terminate the tenancy because the tenant was allegedly causing interference with the peace, comfort, and privacy of other tenants.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the application because the Residential Tenancies Act does not allow the Tribunal to consider anti-social behavior claims for fixed-term tenancies.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 55A, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider anti-social behavior claims for fixed-term tenancies.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, the Tribunal will not consider anti-social behavior claims for fixed-term tenancies unless the tenancy agreement ends.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.