What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4624849 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 4624849?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4624849?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4624849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9249845-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4624849 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 4624849?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4624849?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4624849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9249845-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4624849 — Harassment

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 landlord’s application for termination is dismissed. The tenant is on notice that three further anti-social behaviour incidents of breach with supporting evidence will almost certainly result in termination of the tenancy.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had the support [redacted].
The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord seeking termination of the tenancy, and the relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord states there have been a number of problems with the tenant’s behaviour over the years, but in this application three particular episodes are raised as the basis for a termination of the tenancy. The landlord has given three notices of anti-social behaviour to the tenant, the dates and relevant notices are as follows: a. 30 June 2023: - slamming a ball on a neighbour’s fence and throwing material on the neighbour’s vehicle roof as they were leaving. b. 3 July 2023: - spread chicken fat on the windows and doors of a sports bar near the premises after getting upset over noise. c. 6 July 2023: - neighbour complaining that the tenant was intimidating and aggressive as they drove out of their driveway.
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 RTA 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.
The landlord claims that the tenant’s behaviour has been an issue for 11 months and that they filed a previous application for termination but withdrew it based on agreements with the tenant that his behaviour would improve. The landlord explained that the owner of the premises had had enough of the tenant and his intimidating behaviour towards his neighbours.
The tenant claims that the neighbours have been provoking him and that he has been under a lot of stress as his mother passed away in recent months. The tenant admitted to smearing chicken fat on the neighbouring sports bar and claims that he apologised to the owner following the event. The tenant disputes the behaviour claimed in relation to the other two notices.
The term ‘anti-social behaviour’ is defined in section 55A(7) of the RTA as follows: (7) In this section, anti-social behaviour means— (a) harassment; or (b) any other act or omission (whether intentional or not), if the act or omission reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor.
In order for a termination to be granted, the three notices must relate to behaviour that meets the subsection 7 definition. The Tribunal assesses whether the behaviour described in the notices would be antisocial behaviour.
I consider that the landlord had failed to establish grounds under which a termination under section 55A could be ordered. This is because the evidence provided by the landlord was insufficient to satisfy the necessary burden of proof.
As set out above it is difficult for the Tribunal to make a finding about a breach where there is no direct evidence available from those who have experienced the behaviour alleged to have occurred. Limited weight can be given to hearsay evidence, when the person who made the statement is not available to give direct evidence and be questioned on their evidence.
Here there were no witnesses, and the representative for the landlord was unable to give direct evidence on any of the allegations relied upon as she had not personally witnessed any of those events.
The landlord’s evidence is limited to the landlord’s representative repeating what others have told her, either in writing or verbally. Limited weight can be given to second (or third) hand evidence because such evidence is not given under oath and cannot be tested under cross examination.
In this case, there is insufficient evidence from those who witnessed the alleged behaviour to help determine what has happened. Accordingly, the landlord has not established grounds to terminate the tenancy under section 55A, RTA.
Finally, the slamming of a ball on a fence is not harassment and, on the evidence, provided I am not satisfied that the act caused alarm or distress or nuisance that was more than minor.
Because the landlord has not been successful the filing fee is not reimbursed.
Taking into account the service provided by the landlord and the tenant’s mental health, I do not consider that publishing the landlord or tenant’s identifying details is in the public interest (s 95A, RTA) T Lee-Lewis 02 August 2023

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 landlord’s application for termination is dismissed. The tenant is on notice that three further anti-social behaviour incidents of breach with supporting evidence will almost certainly result in termination of the tenancy.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had the support [redacted].
The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord seeking termination of the tenancy, and the relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord states there have been a number of problems with the tenant’s behaviour over the years, but in this application three particular episodes are raised as the basis for a termination of the tenancy. The landlord has given three notices of anti-social behaviour to the tenant, the dates and relevant notices are as follows: a. 30 June 2023: - slamming a ball on a neighbour’s fence and throwing material on the neighbour’s vehicle roof as they were leaving. b. 3 July 2023: - spread chicken fat on the windows and doors of a sports bar near the premises after getting upset over noise. c. 6 July 2023: - neighbour complaining that the tenant was intimidating and aggressive as they drove out of their driveway.
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 RTA 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.
The landlord claims that the tenant’s behaviour has been an issue for 11 months and that they filed a previous application for termination but withdrew it based on agreements with the tenant that his behaviour would improve. The landlord explained that the owner of the premises had had enough of the tenant and his intimidating behaviour towards his neighbours.
The tenant claims that the neighbours have been provoking him and that he has been under a lot of stress as his mother passed away in recent months. The tenant admitted to smearing chicken fat on the neighbouring sports bar and claims that he apologised to the owner following the event. The tenant disputes the behaviour claimed in relation to the other two notices.
The term ‘anti-social behaviour’ is defined in section 55A(7) of the RTA as follows: (7) In this section, anti-social behaviour means— (a) harassment; or (b) any other act or omission (whether intentional or not), if the act or omission reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor.
In order for a termination to be granted, the three notices must relate to behaviour that meets the subsection 7 definition. The Tribunal assesses whether the behaviour described in the notices would be antisocial behaviour.
I consider that the landlord had failed to establish grounds under which a termination under section 55A could be ordered. This is because the evidence provided by the landlord was insufficient to satisfy the necessary burden of proof.
As set out above it is difficult for the Tribunal to make a finding about a breach where there is no direct evidence available from those who have experienced the behaviour alleged to have occurred. Limited weight can be given to hearsay evidence, when the person who made the statement is not available to give direct evidence and be questioned on their evidence.
Here there were no witnesses, and the representative for the landlord was unable to give direct evidence on any of the allegations relied upon as she had not personally witnessed any of those events.
The landlord’s evidence is limited to the landlord’s representative repeating what others have told her, either in writing or verbally. Limited weight can be given to second (or third) hand evidence because such evidence is not given under oath and cannot be tested under cross examination.
In this case, there is insufficient evidence from those who witnessed the alleged behaviour to help determine what has happened. Accordingly, the landlord has not established grounds to terminate the tenancy under section 55A, RTA.
Finally, the slamming of a ball on a fence is not harassment and, on the evidence, provided I am not satisfied that the act caused alarm or distress or nuisance that was more than minor.
Because the landlord has not been successful the filing fee is not reimbursed.
Taking into account the service provided by the landlord and the tenant’s mental health, I do not consider that publishing the landlord or tenant’s identifying details is in the public interest (s 95A, RTA) T Lee-Lewis 02 August 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4624849 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4624849 — 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