What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4673989 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 4673989?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4673989?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4673989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9456512-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4673989 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 4673989?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4673989?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4673989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9456512-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4673989 — 14-day notice

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 Nicholas Yates at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 4pm on Monday, 2 October 2023
Nicholas Yates must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

The representatives of the landlord attended the hearing. I also heard from four witnesses who were called by the landlord.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. He applied for an adjournment on the morning of the hearing. The request was declined. The Tribunal attempted to call the tenant to give him the opportunity to attend by telephone, but the call was not answered.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant and for assault by the tenant. Termination – Anti-Social Behaviour
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.
The landlord produced four notices of anti-social behaviour. The notices clearly set out the alleged anti-social behaviour. The landlord provided corroborative evidence of the behaviour alleged in the notices. See Oaks Property Management Limited v Tenant [2022] NZTT 4345545.
The first and second notices were served on the same day (10 August 2023). In the first, the landlord alleges that on 4 July 2023 the tenant was aggressive and intimidating towards members of its staff. I heard form both staff members and find that the conduct complained of, including touching and pushing the staff members amounts to an assault. In the second notice, the landlord alleges that the tenant was verbally abusive towards another tenant at the complex and her visitor on 18 July 2023. I heard evidence from both the resident and her visitor.
The third notice was served on 18 August 2023 and relates to an email sent by the tenant on 13 August 2023. In that email the tenant threatened to find out where an employee of the landlord lives and said that if she has pets, “I hope she has real, real good security.”
The fourth notice was served on 24 August 2023 and related to an incident on 16 August 2023. It is alleged that the tenant wrote on a copy of the second notice and put it on a chair at the other resident’s address. The handwritten note includes a comment that the other resident “can’t take an insult for being a little girl can you?” The other resident described the effect of this tenant’s conduct on her.
The landlord has established that the events referred to in each of the notices constitute anti-social behaviour and that the formal requirements for the notices set out in s 55A(2) RTA are met.
I must not make an order if I am satisfied that doing so would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the notices were given. See s55A(3) RTA. The first and second notices were delivered on the same day, albeit they related to different events on different days. The tenant did not have the effective right to challenge the first notice before the second notice was delivered. 1 However, there were two further notices that did comply with requirements of s55A, with the result that three valid notices were served. The tenancy is terminated at 4pm on Monday, 2 October 2023. 1 See Airedale Property Trust v Lawson [2021} NZTT Auckland 4301453 Termination - Assault
A landlord may seek an order for termination, and the Tribunal “shall” terminate the tenancy, where the tenant assaulted or threatened to assault the landlord or any agent of the landlord. See s55(1)(c) RTA.
The landlord established that on 4 July 2023, the tenant assaulted two of its employees by pushing each of them on the shoulder. After he pushed the first employee he asked; “if I touch you what are you going to do?”. The staff member said that he could not touch her, and he responded by pushing the other and making an aggressive comment. I heard evidence from both staff members.
The landlord described the incident as low level or technical assault but submitted that it did meet the definition of assault being the application of force to the body of another. The landlord has established that it is more likely than not that the tenant assaulted its staff members on 4 July 2023. The tenant also threatened to find the home of one of those staff members in an email dated 13 August 2023, and suggest that she should have “real, real good security.”
I am also satisfied that it is appropriate to terminate the tenancy under s55(1)(c) RTA.
As the landlord was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee and granted its request for suppression of its details.

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 Nicholas Yates at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 4pm on Monday, 2 October 2023
Nicholas Yates must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

The representatives of the landlord attended the hearing. I also heard from four witnesses who were called by the landlord.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. He applied for an adjournment on the morning of the hearing. The request was declined. The Tribunal attempted to call the tenant to give him the opportunity to attend by telephone, but the call was not answered.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant and for assault by the tenant. Termination – Anti-Social Behaviour
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.
The landlord produced four notices of anti-social behaviour. The notices clearly set out the alleged anti-social behaviour. The landlord provided corroborative evidence of the behaviour alleged in the notices. See Oaks Property Management Limited v Tenant [2022] NZTT 4345545.
The first and second notices were served on the same day (10 August 2023). In the first, the landlord alleges that on 4 July 2023 the tenant was aggressive and intimidating towards members of its staff. I heard form both staff members and find that the conduct complained of, including touching and pushing the staff members amounts to an assault. In the second notice, the landlord alleges that the tenant was verbally abusive towards another tenant at the complex and her visitor on 18 July 2023. I heard evidence from both the resident and her visitor.
The third notice was served on 18 August 2023 and relates to an email sent by the tenant on 13 August 2023. In that email the tenant threatened to find out where an employee of the landlord lives and said that if she has pets, “I hope she has real, real good security.”
The fourth notice was served on 24 August 2023 and related to an incident on 16 August 2023. It is alleged that the tenant wrote on a copy of the second notice and put it on a chair at the other resident’s address. The handwritten note includes a comment that the other resident “can’t take an insult for being a little girl can you?” The other resident described the effect of this tenant’s conduct on her.
The landlord has established that the events referred to in each of the notices constitute anti-social behaviour and that the formal requirements for the notices set out in s 55A(2) RTA are met.
I must not make an order if I am satisfied that doing so would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the notices were given. See s55A(3) RTA. The first and second notices were delivered on the same day, albeit they related to different events on different days. The tenant did not have the effective right to challenge the first notice before the second notice was delivered. 1 However, there were two further notices that did comply with requirements of s55A, with the result that three valid notices were served. The tenancy is terminated at 4pm on Monday, 2 October 2023. 1 See Airedale Property Trust v Lawson [2021} NZTT Auckland 4301453 Termination - Assault
A landlord may seek an order for termination, and the Tribunal “shall” terminate the tenancy, where the tenant assaulted or threatened to assault the landlord or any agent of the landlord. See s55(1)(c) RTA.
The landlord established that on 4 July 2023, the tenant assaulted two of its employees by pushing each of them on the shoulder. After he pushed the first employee he asked; “if I touch you what are you going to do?”. The staff member said that he could not touch her, and he responded by pushing the other and making an aggressive comment. I heard evidence from both staff members.
The landlord described the incident as low level or technical assault but submitted that it did meet the definition of assault being the application of force to the body of another. The landlord has established that it is more likely than not that the tenant assaulted its staff members on 4 July 2023. The tenant also threatened to find the home of one of those staff members in an email dated 13 August 2023, and suggest that she should have “real, real good security.”
I am also satisfied that it is appropriate to terminate the tenancy under s55(1)(c) RTA.
As the landlord was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee and granted its request for suppression of its details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4673989 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4673989 — 14-day notice

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