What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4613789 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 4613789?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4613789?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4613789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9274847-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4613789 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 4613789?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4613789?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4613789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9274847-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4613789 — Harassment

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Shaqeul Opetaia-Terore at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
The claim for reimbursement for grocery items is dismissed.

Reasons

The applicant landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour included allowing friends to access the premises resulting in police callouts at the property which caused disturbance and distress to other residents, excessive music noise and causing damage to the common area. Evidence was provided in support of the claims including photographs and police records.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: 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.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose, and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy. However, the landlord has advised that on their last inspection they found the premises vacant, so they believe the tenant has already moved out of the premises.
The landlord also sought reimbursement for the cost of grocery items it was claimed were taken from another tenant at the premises. This matter is a dispute between tenants and is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, therefore, no order will be made.
The applicant is seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order. The Tribunal may make the order having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has been substantially successful in these proceedings. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression of the applicant details as sought.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Shaqeul Opetaia-Terore at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
The claim for reimbursement for grocery items is dismissed.

Reasons

The applicant landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour included allowing friends to access the premises resulting in police callouts at the property which caused disturbance and distress to other residents, excessive music noise and causing damage to the common area. Evidence was provided in support of the claims including photographs and police records.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: 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.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose, and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy. However, the landlord has advised that on their last inspection they found the premises vacant, so they believe the tenant has already moved out of the premises.
The landlord also sought reimbursement for the cost of grocery items it was claimed were taken from another tenant at the premises. This matter is a dispute between tenants and is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, therefore, no order will be made.
The applicant is seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order. The Tribunal may make the order having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has been substantially successful in these proceedings. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression of the applicant details as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4613789 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4613789 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions