What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4467540 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4467540?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4467540?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4467540?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8571434-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4467540 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4467540?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4467540?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4467540?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8571434-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Tenancy address] Tenancy Tribunal Case 4467540 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 24 January 2023. The landlord was represented by [The landlord/s representatives].
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The law in regard to termination for breach
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 (RTA). [my underlining]
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
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.

Has the tenant breached his obligations?

The landlord says that the tenant has caused interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of other tenants who live in the same apartment unit and that the breach cannot be remedied. If this is proven, this would be a breach of section 40(2)(c) RTA.
Also, a clause in the tenancy agreement says:
Excessive Noise – A strict excessive noise policy is enforced. Excessive noise between the hours of 9PM until 9am 7 days a week causing disruption to other tenants residing in the complex is in direct breach of this tenancy agreement.
The tenant lives in an apartment with four self-contained rooms (each has its own bathroom) each of which are rented out separately. The tenants of the four rooms share a communal kitchen and laundry. The tenants do not get to choose who the other tenants are in their apartment. The landlord does this.
[The tenant/s] has lived here for nearly two years (since 1 April 2021).
In support of the application, the landlord provided five emails from three previous tenants of the apartment. The emails are addressed to the landlord and describe various incidents and behaviour of a tenant at the apartment including the playing of loud music accompanied with loud singing or screaming, sudden yelling and swearing including things like “I hope you die” and “I’m going to kill you” and questioning or conversation into their private and sex lives that make them feel uncomfortable. Some of the emails seem to identify [The tenant/s] and suggest that the behaviour is worse when he may have been drinking alcohol.
The Tribunal has not been given the names of the writers of the emails and they were not available to speak to by telephone or in person. The landlord confirmed that none of the complainants live at the apartment now.
The landlord emailed the tenant on 8 November 2022 to notify him of the alleged breach and warn him that if it was not remedied, it may make this application to terminate the tenancy.
I asked [The tenant/s] if he was responsible for any of the behaviour described in the emails. He said that he did not play the loud music (“that was someone else”) but agreed that he did shout violent statements and swear loudly sometimes when he was playing online video games with his headphones on. He said he got carried away. He also said that he did engage in “boy banter” with other tenants but did not realise that it was uncomfortable for them. He said that he did not know that the other tenants were concerned until the landlord phoned him on 8 November to tell him about the complaints. He apologised and says that he now understands that his behaviour has upset other tenants.
The tenant has admitted that he probably did breach the reasonable peace and comfort of others living at the apartment.
However, the evidence does not establish that this behaviour continued after he was spoken to by the landlord and sent the breach email on 8 November 2022. Only one of the email complaints refers to a date after this and I am not satisfied that it shows a breach.
The landlord says that this breach cannot be remedied but I do not agree. In my view, if there is insufficient evidence that [The tenant/s] breached the peace or privacy of other tenants after being given the 8 November 2022 notice of breach, then I cannot terminate the tenancy.
Also, [The tenant/s] has given explanations for his behaviour that are plausible, and the complainants were not present to comment on what he said. The landlord confirmed that none of the current tenants have made complaints.
I have decided that it is not inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy on this occasion.
The application is dismissed.
I pointed out to [The tenant/s] that if the landlord were to bring another application for similar reasons, then the Tribunal may well terminate the tenancy. Anti-social behaviour – section 55A RTA
There is a relatively new section in the RTA (section 55A) that provides for termination of a tenancy for “anti-social behaviour” which includes actions that “reasonably cause alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor”; s55A(7)(b) RTA.
It seems to me that this is a description of the behaviour that the other tenants were concerned about in this case.
A landlord needs to follow the clear instructions in that section, which are below: 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.
These steps are designed to make it absolutely clear to a tenant that anti-social behaviour is under scrutiny and that their tenancy may be terminated if there are 3 separate instances within 90 days.
Tenancy Services has provided forms for the required notices, on their website. Written statements or complaints
It is part of the Tribunal’s task to weigh the evidence available. The Tribunal can and does accept written statements or complaints when the writer of those is not present, but these may be of limited value. This is because the writer cannot be asked questions to clarify what they have written.
If complainants want to remain anonymous then the landlord can delete names from written evidence and provide only the Tribunal with the names and contact numbers for those people, which can be kept confidential. They can be telephoned from the hearing room without their names being used. Suppression of names
I suppress the landlord’s name although it has been unsuccessful because its concerns were genuine. I suppress the tenant’s name as he has successfully defended the claim.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 24 January 2023. The landlord was represented by [The landlord/s representatives].
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The law in regard to termination for breach
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 (RTA). [my underlining]
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
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.

Has the tenant breached his obligations?

The landlord says that the tenant has caused interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of other tenants who live in the same apartment unit and that the breach cannot be remedied. If this is proven, this would be a breach of section 40(2)(c) RTA.
Also, a clause in the tenancy agreement says:
Excessive Noise – A strict excessive noise policy is enforced. Excessive noise between the hours of 9PM until 9am 7 days a week causing disruption to other tenants residing in the complex is in direct breach of this tenancy agreement.
The tenant lives in an apartment with four self-contained rooms (each has its own bathroom) each of which are rented out separately. The tenants of the four rooms share a communal kitchen and laundry. The tenants do not get to choose who the other tenants are in their apartment. The landlord does this.
[The tenant/s] has lived here for nearly two years (since 1 April 2021).
In support of the application, the landlord provided five emails from three previous tenants of the apartment. The emails are addressed to the landlord and describe various incidents and behaviour of a tenant at the apartment including the playing of loud music accompanied with loud singing or screaming, sudden yelling and swearing including things like “I hope you die” and “I’m going to kill you” and questioning or conversation into their private and sex lives that make them feel uncomfortable. Some of the emails seem to identify [The tenant/s] and suggest that the behaviour is worse when he may have been drinking alcohol.
The Tribunal has not been given the names of the writers of the emails and they were not available to speak to by telephone or in person. The landlord confirmed that none of the complainants live at the apartment now.
The landlord emailed the tenant on 8 November 2022 to notify him of the alleged breach and warn him that if it was not remedied, it may make this application to terminate the tenancy.
I asked [The tenant/s] if he was responsible for any of the behaviour described in the emails. He said that he did not play the loud music (“that was someone else”) but agreed that he did shout violent statements and swear loudly sometimes when he was playing online video games with his headphones on. He said he got carried away. He also said that he did engage in “boy banter” with other tenants but did not realise that it was uncomfortable for them. He said that he did not know that the other tenants were concerned until the landlord phoned him on 8 November to tell him about the complaints. He apologised and says that he now understands that his behaviour has upset other tenants.
The tenant has admitted that he probably did breach the reasonable peace and comfort of others living at the apartment.
However, the evidence does not establish that this behaviour continued after he was spoken to by the landlord and sent the breach email on 8 November 2022. Only one of the email complaints refers to a date after this and I am not satisfied that it shows a breach.
The landlord says that this breach cannot be remedied but I do not agree. In my view, if there is insufficient evidence that [The tenant/s] breached the peace or privacy of other tenants after being given the 8 November 2022 notice of breach, then I cannot terminate the tenancy.
Also, [The tenant/s] has given explanations for his behaviour that are plausible, and the complainants were not present to comment on what he said. The landlord confirmed that none of the current tenants have made complaints.
I have decided that it is not inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy on this occasion.
The application is dismissed.
I pointed out to [The tenant/s] that if the landlord were to bring another application for similar reasons, then the Tribunal may well terminate the tenancy. Anti-social behaviour – section 55A RTA
There is a relatively new section in the RTA (section 55A) that provides for termination of a tenancy for “anti-social behaviour” which includes actions that “reasonably cause alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor”; s55A(7)(b) RTA.
It seems to me that this is a description of the behaviour that the other tenants were concerned about in this case.
A landlord needs to follow the clear instructions in that section, which are below: 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.
These steps are designed to make it absolutely clear to a tenant that anti-social behaviour is under scrutiny and that their tenancy may be terminated if there are 3 separate instances within 90 days.
Tenancy Services has provided forms for the required notices, on their website. Written statements or complaints
It is part of the Tribunal’s task to weigh the evidence available. The Tribunal can and does accept written statements or complaints when the writer of those is not present, but these may be of limited value. This is because the writer cannot be asked questions to clarify what they have written.
If complainants want to remain anonymous then the landlord can delete names from written evidence and provide only the Tribunal with the names and contact numbers for those people, which can be kept confidential. They can be telephoned from the hearing room without their names being used. Suppression of names
I suppress the landlord’s name although it has been unsuccessful because its concerns were genuine. I suppress the tenant’s name as he has successfully defended the claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4467540 — 14-day notice at [Tenancy address]

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4467540 — 14-day notice at [Tenancy address]

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant breached his obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant breached his obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions