What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4671571 about?

This case concerned a 14-day notice dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4671571?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4671571?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4671571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9634714-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4671571 about?

This case concerned a 14-day notice dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4671571?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4671571?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4671571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9634714-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4671571 — 14-day notice

Reasons

The landlord was represented at the hearing by [The tenancy team leader/s], Tenancy Team Leader, and [The tenancy manager/s], Tenancy Manager.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. Not long before the hearing commenced, a bundle of documents was delivered by a person on behalf of the tenant and given to the landlord’s representatives to provide to the Tribunal. I have considered these documents in determining this application.
The landlord is a social housing provider that provides social housing and support to those living in its properties.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of: a) anti-social behaviour by the tenant under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), and b) breach of the tenant’s obligation not to cause interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants or any person residing in the neighbourhood (section 40(2)(c), RTA).
The tenancy commenced on 20 September 2021 and is a periodic tenancy. The tenant lives in the front unit of two units which are joined by a common wall. The tenant in the back unit is also a tenant of the landlord.

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55A?

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.
Section 55A(3),RTA provides that the Tribunal must not make an order if satisfied that doing so would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred or the notices were given.
Section 55A(4), RTA provides that the Tribunal must not take into account the impact that terminating the tenancy would have on the tenant.
Section 55A(7) confirms that antisocial behaviour means “harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor”.
The landlord describes the tenant’s anti-social behaviour in the notices as: i. The first notice is dated 19 June 2023 and relates to behaviour that took place on 3 May 2023. The notice states that the tenant made hand signals from her window to visitors to the back unit as they walked past her unit. The hand signals were described in the notice as the tenant displaying “two outstretched fingers in front of her eyes and repeatedly motioned her fingers towards the visitors with an angry expression”. The tenant then came out with “her hands on her hips, lunging forward and shouting obscenities. She was talking about her neighbour [in the back unit] 1 ”. The neighbour referred to lives next door to the tenant and is the same neighbour referred to through out this decision. ii. The second notice is dated 25 July 2023 for behaviour that occurred on two separate occasions. On 16 July the alleged antisocial behaviour is described as “yelling abusive language at the neighbour’s children”, then the tenant going inside her unit and “loudly slamming doors and windows whilst continuing to yell abusive language at the neighbour”. The second occasion, on 22 July, describes that the tenant was “yelling abusive language towards the neighbour’s house.” iii. The third notice was issued on 22 August 2023 and covers 4 separate incidents that took place on 4 consecutive days from 25 July to 28 July 2023. The behaviours described are similar to the behaviours in the second notice. That is, yelling, screaming, using abusive language, swearing at the neighbour’s children or about the neighbour’s children. The notice also records that on 28 July 2023 the tenant entered the neighbour’s property and opened the gate that secures her back yard from the front of the house and road.
In addition to these three notices the landlord issued a fourth notice on 11 September 2023. The behaviour described in the fourth notice is of the tenant yelling at and verbally abusing the neighbour. It also describes threats made to the neighbour, that the tenant will “share the neighbour’s personal details to the “boys” at the local pub”, and that the tenant “told the neighbour that another neighbour had been raped in her home. She then threatened her and said “you need to look out so the same does not happen to you”.
The first three notices concern more than three separate occasions of antisocial behaviour within a 90-day period and the three notices were all issued within a 90- day day period. The application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the third notice being issued. I find the first three notices given by the landlord meet the requirements of antisocial behaviour notices as set out in section 55A.
The fourth notice does not fall within the time frames set out in s 55A, as the timing of the antisocial behaviour is mire than 90 days after the first antisocial behaviour incident stated in the first notice. However the scheme of the provision is based on three notices and the fourth notice is supplementary to that.
I now need to consider whether the behaviour described in the notices took place and if it did, whether it falls within the definition of ‘antisocial behaviour’ in terms of the section 55A definition. 1 Address redacted Did the behaviour described in the notices take place and if so, is the tenant’s behaviour “antisocial behaviour”?
The burden of proof is on the landlord to prove that the elements set out in s 55A are made out. This means the landlord must prove that the alleged behaviour took place by the tenant or a person at the premises with their permission.
The behaviours described in the antisocial behaviour notices were corroborated and verified by witnesses who attended the hearing and gave direct evidence.
One of the visitors referred to in the first antisocial behaviour notice, a [Witness], gave evidence that the reason for her visit to the rear unit on 3 May was because the tenant in the rear unit had contacted her and sounded fearful of the tenant in the front unit over the phone. The witness described in detail the incident that occurred. She said the tenant’s (respondent) language was “appalling”, and included obscenities, racial slurs and threatening behaviour which was directed towards the tenant in the rear unit. The [Witness]’s evidence was that she felt intimidated and threatened by the tenant’s mannerisms and behaviours.
The neighbour that made the complaints to the landlord that resulted in notices 2- 3 being issued, gave evidence at the hearing. She described each of the incidents set out in the notices. Her evidence painted a picture of the tenant yelling obscenities, swearing, making derogatory comments to her in front of her children (3 year old twins) as well as making similar comments about and to her children. The neighbour’s evidence was that after the incident on 28 July, 2 when the tenant came onto her property and opened the gate that secures her backyard and prevents her children from going onto the road, she trespassed the tenant from her property. The neighbour’s evidence is supported by police report and emails/texts sent to the landlord.
The representatives who attended the hearing for the landlord are either currently or have been active in managing the tenant’s tenancy. Both stated they have received regular and numerous phone calls and complaints from the neighbour about the tenant. They also stated that the tenant has made allegations to them about the neighbour’s behaviour. They said they and others on behalf of the landlord have offered on a number of occasions to support the tenant in taking her allegations further, but that the tenant has never wanted to and has never made any formal complaint about the neighbour.
The tenant states in her documents, that the neighbour has threatened her; has admitted responsibility for vandalism to tenant’s home; constantly insults her; throws rocks on her roof; tells the other neighbours she is “a crazy alcoholic bitch”, and accuses her of things that never happen. She says the property managers are aware of all the comments she has made about the neighbour. 2 Described in the third notice
The tenant also states that she is not being treated fairly and has sent many texts/photos which are not used to support her story, and that she does not get the chance to respond to allegations made against her. She says she has contacted the neighbour’s landlord about the complaints and that he has asked for proof. She states that she believes the neighbour is fabricating lies to get her evicted and that she too has made police reports.
The tenant has written on the covering page of her document bundle “I have chosen not to attend todays meeting as I am nervous and anxious”. The tenant has included in her bundle the trespass notice issued against her by the neighbour and an acknowledgement from the police about a report she made concerning an incident with the back unit tenant on 1 May 3 . She has also provided a Work and Income Work Capacity Medical Certificate. No other documents supporting the tenant’s view have been forwarded to the Tribunal. I can only assume that her reference in her written statement to sending in texts/photos means she has sent them to the landlord in the past.
By not attending the hearing I am not able to ask the tenant any questions and am not able to verify or form a view on how credible her statements are. Effectively that means that I give less weight to the tenant’s evidence than I give to the landlord’s evidence, as the landlord has provided corroborating witnesses and documents to support its allegation of antisocial behaviour. I note that the tenant did not challenge any of the notices given to her under s 55A, as those notices allow.
I find the evidence of the [Witness] and the neighbour to be credible and persuasive. I am convinced by the landlord’s evidence that the anti-social behaviour by the tenant as described in the notices has occurred. I am also convinced by the landlord’s evidence that the behaviour has caused alarm, distress and nuisance to an extent that is well more than minor and falls within the definition of antisocial behaviour for the purposes of s 55A.
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.
For the above reasons I find the landlord is entitled to termination of the tenant’s tenancy for antisocial behaviour under s 55A. 3 The back unit tenant also referred to the incident and also made a police report. Should the tenant be terminated for breach of the tenant’s obligation not to cause interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants or any person residing in the neighbourhood?
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) RTA.
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 to 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.
The landlord has presented a number of 14 day notices that it has issued to the tenant. All of the notices are for breach of the tenant’s responsibility not to cause interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants or any person residing in the neighbourhood (section 40(2)(c), RTA).
The 14-day notices provided to the Tribunal were issued on: 25 July 2023, 22 August, 11 September, 11 October, and 2 November 2023.
The 25 July notice was issued for the events involving the neighbour for which the second antisocial behaviour notice was given. The 22 August notice was issued for the events on the four separate days that the third antisocial notice was given. The 11 September notice was issued for the events on the four separate days that the fourth antisocial behaviour notice was given.
The 11 October notice was given for events that occurred in early October. On 6 October the neighbour and the back unit tenant complained of being disturbed by the tenant at and a male yelling at each other and then the male started yelling at the neighbour. On 9 October the tenant in the back unit says the tenant hit her in the face with her cell phone after they had an altercation. The neighbour’s evidence is that she saw the incident. Both the neighbour and the back unit tenant rang the police.
The 2 November notice was given after an incident on 30 October when it is alleged that the tenant punched the back unit tenant. The tenant (respondent) has been charged with assault; the matter has not yet been determined by the court.
The tenant’s written statement includes that she has complained to the landlord about the back unit tenant’s behaviour and her threats to “beat her up”. She says the landlord has told her to ignore the back unit tenant’s behaviour but believes that the landlord has given the back unit tenant a “hall pass” because of her head injuries. The tenant believes the back unit tenant wants to get rid of her as she doesn’t like her. She says she has made a formal complaint to the landlord but that nothing has come of the complaint. She has commented that the “sudden spree of complaints are made up of only statements from the same two people that complain about me always happen to “see” or “hear” the other getting abused”.
The comments I have made above, regarding the tenant not attend the hearings which means I had no opportunity to hear from her directly, ask her questions or assess her credibility, apply to this part of the claim as well. The tenant has had the same opportunity to attend the hearing and provide the Tribunal with evidence that supports her side of the matter as the landlord.
The landlord’s evidence, including that of its witnesses, is very persuasive and convincing that the tenant has interfered with both the neighbour’s and the back tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
In addition to the evidence supporting the notices issued, both the neighbour and the tenant have given evidence of other incidents where the tenant has yelled at them using abusive, threatening language. The landlord has confirmed that it has received regular complaints from the tenant in the back unit and a neighbour about the tenant’s behaviour.
I am satisfied that the tenant has breached section 40(2)(c) of the RTA and that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Even if I had not terminated the tenancy under the antisocial notice provisions the tenancy would have terminated under section 40(2)(c). Filing Fee
As the landlord has been successful in its claim I must award the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord has made an application for suppression and as they have been successful in their claim they are entitled to suppression of their name and identifying particulars of the tenancy. (see section 95A(1)).
Section 95(4) allows the Tribunal or its own initiative to order all or part of the evidence, or the name of the identifying particulars of any party or witnesses, not be published. I exercise the discretion in this provision to suppress the name of the tenant and all witnesses. I am satisfied having considered the public interest that suppression is appropriate.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4671571 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4671571 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55A?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55A?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions