Tenant's Tenancy Terminated for Repeated Breaches
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ended a tenant's lease because of repeated breaches of the tenancy agreement, including noise disturbances and failing to maintain the property. The Tribunal determined that the breaches were serious and ongoing, despite multiple warnings.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant's tenancy may be terminated by the Tribunal for repeated breaches of the tenancy agreement that are inequitable to refuse.
📖 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 exercised a right or made a complaint. The tenant must apply within 14 working days of receiving the notice.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal terminated the tenancy of a tenant for repeated breaches of the tenancy agreement.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal terminated the tenancy of a tenant for repeated breaches of the tenancy agreement, including noise disturbances and property maintenance issues. The Tribunal found that the breaches were serious, longstanding, and the tenant had not taken steps to address them.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5110668 1
[2025] NZTT 5110668
TENANCY TRIBUNAL - Palmerston North | Te Papaioea
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 [COMPANY], at 11.59 pm Friday 21 February 2025.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
Should the tenancy be terminated?
3. 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 section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
4. 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 to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5110668 2
5. 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 evidence
6. The landlord provided evidence as follows:
a. The tenancy started on 7 April 2016.
b. On 10 May 2024 the landlord gave notice to the tenant that he was breaching the terms of his tenancy agreement by disturbing the peace and quiet enjoyment of his neighbours by playing loud music and his guests coming onto the property and revving their cars’ engines loudly.
c. On 30 July 2024 the landlord gave notice to the tenant that he breached the terms of his tenancy agreement by disturbing the peace and quiet enjoyment of his neighbours when he had a loud altercation with his son.
d. On 31 July 2024 the landlord gave the tenant notice to remove cars from the back and front lawns and mow them. The tenant removed one van but did not remove any of the others or mow the lawns.
e. Further to a verbal discussion on 3 October 2024, the landlord gave notice to the tenant on 9 October 2024 that he breached the terms of his tenancy agreement by disturbing the peace and quiet enjoyment of his neighbours by playing “loud music through the day and night” and by engaging in or allowing “shouting and disruptive behaviour in the middle of the night”.
f. On 4 October 2024 the landlord gave the tenant another notice to remove the cars and scrap metal from the property and mow the lawns. The tenant did some weed eating but did not otherwise comply.
g. On 30 October 2024 the landlord gave the tenant notice about cars exiting his property and doing “burn outs” on the street on 20 October 2024.
h. Having discussed his disruptive behaviour on 1 November 2024, the landlord gave further notice to the tenant on 6 November 2024 regarding his guests doing further “burn outs” outside the property.
i. The landlord gave the tenant notice on 11 December 2024 about a loud explosion and fire in the backyard at 3.20 am on 28 November 2024.
j. The landlord issued a notice to the tenant on 23 January 2025 about loud music from his property disturbing the peace and quiet enjoyment of his neighbours at 1 am on 19 January 2025.
k. The landlord issued a notice to the tenant on 10 February 2025 about a loud argument which disturbed his neighbours’ peace and quiet enjoyment around 11 am on 5 February 2025.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5110668 3
l. The New Zealand Police confirmed that during the tenancy there have been 88 calls for service in relation to this property. For the year 2024 the police have 31 records relating to the property for the period from 9 February 2024 to 20 December 2024: “These records cover a number of calls for service which vary from intelligence notings, persons taken into custody, serious offending that is linked to the address or persons at the address, missing persons, anti-social road behaviour and assaults.” In “2019 Police executed a search power for drugs locating an indoor cannabis grow…”
m. The landlord has issued 50 separate notices to the tenant since 2016.
n. The landlord has received 21 separate email complaints and 52 separate text complaints regarding the tenancy from the general public since 1 October 2024.
7. The tenant gave evidence as follows:
a. He is aware of the issues raised by the landlord and accepts that most of the complaints are reasonable. He understands how this behaviour could upset his neighbours.
b. Much of the bad behaviour was caused by his guests. He likes to give everyone a chance and has been let down by some of the people he has trusted.
c. He believes that he can remove the vehicles and tidy the lawns if he is given another opportunity.
d. He wants to be given the opportunity to change his behaviour.
Discussion and decision
8. The landlord has proven on the balance of the probabilities that the tenant has repeatedly breached the terms of his tenancy over the last year. The tenant responsibly accepted that he had done so.
9. It remains to determine whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. As noted at the hearing, termination is the ultimate sanction. The Tribunal understands the significant impact it has on tenants and does not make a termination order without a reasoned consideration of all relevant matters.
10. In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered section 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5110668 4
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.
11. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate this tenancy for the following reasons:
a. The period of breaches has been significant and has been documented for a year. The breaches are serious and longstanding and the tenant has not taken any steps to ensure that they do not occur again.
b. Th tenant has received numerous breach notices over the last year but has not changed his behaviour or moderated the behaviour of his guests.
c. Despite being requested to attend meetings to discuss the issues and find a way forward, the tenant has not engaged with the landlord to address the issues.
d. Despite being aware of these proceedings and an imminent hearing date, the tenant has allowed the anti-social behaviour to continue so that two further notices have been issued since the landlord filed its application.
e. Despite the tenant indicating he was willing to change his ways, the long and persistent history of breaches indicate that he is not able to stop the behaviour of his guests and the Tribunal does not have confidence that the behaviour will stop.
f. The tenant’s neighbours have clearly had enough and it is unfair that they continue to suffer from the tenant’s ant-social behaviour. They are legally entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their own properties. The landlord is legally obliged to take steps to deal with a tenant who is interfering with the quiet enjoyment of neighbours.
g. The landlord has done its best to engage with the tenant to address the issues but the tenant has failed to engage or take any positive action.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5110668 5
h. Termination is not disproportionate to the many and persistent breaches by the tenant over a lengthy period of time.
[NAME]
12 February 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5110668 6
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5110668 7
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 repeatedly breached the terms of his tenancy agreement over a significant period.
- The breaches included disturbing neighbors with loud music and disruptive behavior.
- The landlord issued numerous breach notices and received multiple complaints from neighbors.
- The tenant did not take any steps to ensure that the breaches would not occur again despite warnings.
- The landlord attempted to engage with the tenant to address the issues, but the tenant failed to cooperate.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant indicated willingness to change his behavior and tidy the property.
- The tenant claimed that much of the bad behavior was caused by his guests.
- The tenant believed he could remove vehicles and tidy lawns if given another opportunity.
- The tenant wanted to be given the opportunity to change his behavior.
- The landlord had not served a 14-day breach notice on the tenant for each individual breach.
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 for repeated breaches of the tenancy agreement.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant's repeated breaches of the tenancy agreement justified terminating the tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to terminate the tenancy because the breaches were serious, longstanding, and the tenant had not taken steps to address them.
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 that the breaches were serious and the tenant had not taken steps to address them despite multiple warnings.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, repeated breaches of a tenancy agreement can lead to termination of the tenancy.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included multiple breach notices, police records, and complaints from neighbors.