What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5299909?

The tribunal order states: Michael Craig Gugich’s application to invalidate the 90-day termination notice

How much money was awarded in case 5299909?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299909?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12186127-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5299909?

The tribunal order states: Michael Craig Gugich’s application to invalidate the 90-day termination notice

How much money was awarded in case 5299909?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299909?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12186127-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 23, 57 Enfield Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5299909 — Harassment

Order

Michael Craig Gugich’s application to invalidate the 90-day termination notice dated 8 May 2025 is dismissed.
The tenancy lawfully ends on 2 August 2025 in accordance with the notice.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
This decision relates to an application by Mr Gugich (the tenant) challenging the validity of a 90-day termination notice issued by The Salvation Army New Zealand Trust (the landlord). On 8 May 2025, the landlord served the tenant with a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy, with an effective termination date of 2 August 2025. The notice was issued pursuant to section 51(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), as amended following the legislative changes which took effect on 30 January 2025.
The tenant has applied to the Tribunal seeking to set aside the termination notice. The tenant contends that the landlord failed to substantiate alleged breaches of the tenancy agreement or the Act that were used as the basis for the termination. The tenant strongly denies the allegations and asks the Tribunal to intervene and invalidate the notice on that basis. The Tenant’s Position
The tenant argues that the termination notice should be “thrown out” on the grounds that the landlord has not provided evidence to support the allegations referenced in a series of 14-day and antisocial behaviour notices. The tenant submits that these notices are baseless and disputes the incidents contained within them. The tenant’s core submission is that, in the absence of substantiated breaches, the landlord has no legal standing to terminate the tenancy. Landlord’s Notices and Conduct
The Tribunal file includes several 14-day notices and antisocial behaviour notices issued by the landlord to the tenant. These notices span from November 2024 to April 2025 and cite repeated incidents of conduct said to be disturbing to other tenants, including: •Removal of property from another tenant’s premises and interference with flowers •Allegations of harassment and accusations directed at neighbours •Loud noise, verbal abuse, and swearing by visitors in common areas •Occupancy rule breaches •Alleged removal of a neighbour’s security light, described as theft
These notices are relevant to the landlord’s management of the tenancy and form part of the historical context leading up to the termination. However, the Tribunal notes that the current legal framework does not require the landlord to establish any specific breach of the tenancy agreement or the Act in order to issue a valid 90-day termination notice under section 51(1). Legal Framework
The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 (Amendment Act) introduced changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, effective from 30 January 2025. These changes restore a landlord’s ability to terminate a periodic tenancy by providing at least 90 days’ written notice, without stating any reason, provided the notice complies with the statutory requirements under section 51(1).
The law now provides that landlords are entitled to end a tenancy by notice without needing to establish a breach or provide justification, as long as the notice is: •In writing •Specifies the date by which the tenant is to vacate (at least 90 days after the notice is given) •Is served in accordance with the Act
There is no requirement for the Tribunal to assess the fairness or correctness of the landlord’s motivations unless the tenant alleges that the notice is retaliatory under section 54. Retaliatory Notice – Section 54
Section 54 of the Act allows the Tribunal to declare a termination notice to be retaliatory and therefore of no effect if it is satisfied that the landlord was wholly or partly motivated by the tenant’s exercise of a right under the Act or a complaint made by the tenant relating to the tenancy.
In this case, the tenant has not established that he exercised any specific right under the Act, nor that he made any complaint that could reasonably be connected to the timing or issuance of the 90-day notice. The presence of prior allegations and breach notices issued by the landlord—while contested—do not prove that the termination was issued in retaliation for any protected act by the tenant.
The Tribunal has carefully considered all the material available and finds no compelling evidence to support the conclusion that the notice was retaliatory within the meaning of section 54. Conclusion
The landlord’s 90-day termination notice dated 8 May 2025 complies with the statutory requirements under section 51(1) of the Act as amended. There is no legal requirement for the landlord to prove the alleged breaches that preceded the notice, nor does the Tribunal have discretion to invalidate the notice merely because the tenant disagrees with the landlord’s decision.
Furthermore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the notice was retaliatory under section 54 of the Act.
The application is therefore dismissed.

Order

Michael Craig Gugich’s application to invalidate the 90-day termination notice dated 8 May 2025 is dismissed.
The tenancy lawfully ends on 2 August 2025 in accordance with the notice.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
This decision relates to an application by Mr Gugich (the tenant) challenging the validity of a 90-day termination notice issued by The Salvation Army New Zealand Trust (the landlord). On 8 May 2025, the landlord served the tenant with a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy, with an effective termination date of 2 August 2025. The notice was issued pursuant to section 51(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), as amended following the legislative changes which took effect on 30 January 2025.
The tenant has applied to the Tribunal seeking to set aside the termination notice. The tenant contends that the landlord failed to substantiate alleged breaches of the tenancy agreement or the Act that were used as the basis for the termination. The tenant strongly denies the allegations and asks the Tribunal to intervene and invalidate the notice on that basis. The Tenant’s Position
The tenant argues that the termination notice should be “thrown out” on the grounds that the landlord has not provided evidence to support the allegations referenced in a series of 14-day and antisocial behaviour notices. The tenant submits that these notices are baseless and disputes the incidents contained within them. The tenant’s core submission is that, in the absence of substantiated breaches, the landlord has no legal standing to terminate the tenancy. Landlord’s Notices and Conduct
The Tribunal file includes several 14-day notices and antisocial behaviour notices issued by the landlord to the tenant. These notices span from November 2024 to April 2025 and cite repeated incidents of conduct said to be disturbing to other tenants, including: •Removal of property from another tenant’s premises and interference with flowers •Allegations of harassment and accusations directed at neighbours •Loud noise, verbal abuse, and swearing by visitors in common areas •Occupancy rule breaches •Alleged removal of a neighbour’s security light, described as theft
These notices are relevant to the landlord’s management of the tenancy and form part of the historical context leading up to the termination. However, the Tribunal notes that the current legal framework does not require the landlord to establish any specific breach of the tenancy agreement or the Act in order to issue a valid 90-day termination notice under section 51(1). Legal Framework
The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 (Amendment Act) introduced changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, effective from 30 January 2025. These changes restore a landlord’s ability to terminate a periodic tenancy by providing at least 90 days’ written notice, without stating any reason, provided the notice complies with the statutory requirements under section 51(1).
The law now provides that landlords are entitled to end a tenancy by notice without needing to establish a breach or provide justification, as long as the notice is: •In writing •Specifies the date by which the tenant is to vacate (at least 90 days after the notice is given) •Is served in accordance with the Act
There is no requirement for the Tribunal to assess the fairness or correctness of the landlord’s motivations unless the tenant alleges that the notice is retaliatory under section 54. Retaliatory Notice – Section 54
Section 54 of the Act allows the Tribunal to declare a termination notice to be retaliatory and therefore of no effect if it is satisfied that the landlord was wholly or partly motivated by the tenant’s exercise of a right under the Act or a complaint made by the tenant relating to the tenancy.
In this case, the tenant has not established that he exercised any specific right under the Act, nor that he made any complaint that could reasonably be connected to the timing or issuance of the 90-day notice. The presence of prior allegations and breach notices issued by the landlord—while contested—do not prove that the termination was issued in retaliation for any protected act by the tenant.
The Tribunal has carefully considered all the material available and finds no compelling evidence to support the conclusion that the notice was retaliatory within the meaning of section 54. Conclusion
The landlord’s 90-day termination notice dated 8 May 2025 complies with the statutory requirements under section 51(1) of the Act as amended. There is no legal requirement for the landlord to prove the alleged breaches that preceded the notice, nor does the Tribunal have discretion to invalidate the notice merely because the tenant disagrees with the landlord’s decision.
Furthermore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the notice was retaliatory under section 54 of the Act.
The application is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299909 — Harassment at Flat 23, 57 Enfield Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299909 — Harassment at Flat 23, 57 Enfield Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions