Tenancy Tribunal Terminates Lease Due to Persistent Anti-Social Behavior
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ended a tenant's lease because of ongoing disruptive behavior that affected neighbors' peace and privacy. The tenant was found to be persistently causing trouble despite warnings.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant's tenancy may be terminated if their behavior is persistent, anti-social, and incapable of remedy.
📖 What the law says
This section allows the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy if one party has broken the tenancy agreement or the Act. If the problem can be fixed, the party who complained must have given notice to the other party, asking them to fix it within at least 10 working days.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The tenancy was terminated due to persistent anti-social behavior.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal terminated the tenancy of a tenant whose persistent anti-social behavior was found to be incapable of remedy, affecting the peace, comfort, and privacy of neighboring residents.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5210011 1
[2025] NZTT 5210011
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The tenancy of [NAME] at [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities, at 11.59 pm on Wednesday 16 April 2025.
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not answer the calls made to his phone.
2. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, namely disturbing the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
Should the tenancy be terminated?
3. The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant. The date given on one of the notices is not correct so I will consider the application under section 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5210011 2
4. The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable – very unfair - to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) RTA.
5. Where the breach is not capable of remedy the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone. However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
6. I heard witness evidence from the [NAME] of an adjacent property and from the tenant’s housing services manager. I am persuaded that the breaches are not capable of remedy because:
• there has been a persistent series of breaches
• of the harmful effect of the breaches.
7. Section 40(2)(c) RTA states that a tenant must not disturb the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
8. In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy:
• The history of the tenancy.
• Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings.
• Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future.
• Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed.
• The conduct of the landlord.
• The gravity of the breach.
• Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
9. I was provided with information from the call centre which suggests the tenant has a history of disturbing the neighbours. The housing services manager who gave evidence at the hearing has been responsible for this tenancy since November 2024. At an inspection in March 2025 the tenant ran at her three times to prevent her entering the house and swore at her. She was cornered and afraid. Two neighbours who share a back fence with the tenant gave evidence that the tenant sometimes spends hours on his deck, shouting abuse,
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5210011 3
playing loud music, and swearing. They have called the police and noise control a number of times.
10. It seems most likely to me there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. The landlord has served at least four notices advising the tenant to stop his antisocial behaviour which disturbs the neighbours. The housing services manager spent time with him in January explaining that a Tenancy Tribunal application would be made if he continued to yell, play loud music, and abuse his neighbours.
11. It seems unlikely to me that the tenant is able to comply with the requests for better behaviour.
12. It seems most likely to me the breaches have been deliberate. The [NAME] of the adjacent property installed security cameras in their back garden as a way of protecting themselves. I was provided with two videos from 31 December 2024 and two from 11 March 2025. The tenant can be heard swearing at the neighbours. One of the videos is at night and loud music is playing. The tenant is loud and his tone is threatening. His comments are directed at the [NAME]. Their evidence is the abuse continued for hours on each occasion.
13. It seems most likely to me the landlord has behaved appropriately. Notices have been given and support offered to the tenant.
14. I find the gravity of the behaviour is such that termination is an appropriate response to the persistent breaches of the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the neighbours. While the shouting in the videos is directed at the [NAME] who gave evidence, it seems likely that other neighbours would have been disturbed.
15. I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. This means the tenancy will end.
[NAME]
15 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5210011 4
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5210011 5
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 tenant's behavior has been persistent and anti-social.
- There is a history of repeated warnings to the tenant about their behavior.
- Neighbors have reported disturbances caused by the tenant.
- The landlord has provided evidence of the tenant's deliberate actions.
- The landlord's behavior has been deemed appropriate and supportive.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant did not attend the hearing to defend themselves.
- The tenant did not provide any counter-evidence or defense.
- The landlord did not need to serve a 14-day breach notice due to the severity and persistence of the behavior.
- The tenant's actions have been found to be deliberate and threatening.
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 lease due to persistent anti-social behavior.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant's behavior, including yelling, playing loud music, and swearing, was severe enough to warrant termination of the tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to terminate the tenancy because the tenant's behavior was persistent, anti-social, and could not be remedied, affecting the peace and privacy of neighbors.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 56, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant's behavior was persistent and incapable of remedy, making it inequitable to continue the tenancy.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord who brought the case, allowing the termination of the tenancy.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, persistent anti-social behavior may lead to the termination of their tenancy.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included witness statements from neighbors and a housing services manager, as well as video footage of the tenant's behavior.