What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4646629 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 4646629?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4646629?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4646629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9502474-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4646629 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 4646629?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4646629?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4646629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9502474-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4646629 — Harassment

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 3 rd October 2023 via teleconference.

The tenant made an application challenging the anti-social behaviour notice given by the landlord on 10 th July 2023.

This was the first notice given to the tenant and it alleged that the tenant had been yelling loudly at their child for approximately 5 minutes using inappropriate langue. It also stated that the yelling was heard clearly by the neighbours and their children across the street causing alarm and distress to them.

Section 55A(7) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.

If a tenant makes an application to the Tribunal challenging the anti-social behaviour notice, it is for the landlord to prove that the anti-social behaviour was engaged as per the notice given.

At the hearing, the landlord opted to not prove the anti-social behaviour as the 90-day period from the notice was almost up by the time of the hearing. The landlord was not willing to prove the contents of the original notice and was unwilling to name the complainant.

For anti-social behaviour notices to have real significant effects, there needs to be 3 notices given within a 90-day period.

As the landlord opted to not prove the anti-social behaviour notice, I find that the tenant has successfully challenged the anti-social behaviour notice.

The anti-social behaviour notice from 10 th July 2023 is set aside and cannot be used again against the tenant.

The tenant also claimed that the landlord did not take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace and comfort of the tenant in the use of the premises.

The tenant said that there was a neighbour that had been making false complaints against the tenant.

The landlord said that the neighbour the tenant was referring to was another tenant of the landlord but the landlord confirmed that the neighbouring tenant had moved away from the premises. There had not been any issues since between the two tenants.

As the other neighbouring tenant had moved away and there had been no issues since, I do not find that the landlord has failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the other tenant did not cause interference with the peace and comfort of the tenant.

Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee of $20.44.