What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4674076 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 4674076?

Rent Arrears: $1,429.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4674076?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4674076?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9568632-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4674076 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 4674076?

Rent Arrears: $1,429.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4674076?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4674076?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9568632-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4674076 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4674076 — net $1,429.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 01 November 2023	$1,429.71	Rent arrears to 01 November 2023
Net award	$1,429.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,429.71

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at midnight on Wednesday 01 November 2023.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,429.71 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

[The landlord’s representatives] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant
The landlord is a social housing provider. The tenancy commenced on 01 November 2022 and is periodic. On 01 September 2023, the landlord filed an application for termination of tenancy on the basis that, at the time of filing the application, the tenant was more than 21 days in arrears, the tenant had failed to remedy a 14-day breach notice for rent arrears issued on 14 August 2023, and that, within a 90-day period, the landlord had issued three notices for anti-social behaviour. Termination for rent arrears of more than 21 days
Under section 55(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”), the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy if it is established that the tenant was at least 21 days in arrears at the time the application was made. The weekly rent is $69.00. The Tribunal has calculated the rent due, and [The landlord’s representative] has produced rent summaries and given evidence under promise. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the rent arrears were at the time the application was filed were $ 828.43, which is more than 21 days. The tenancy is terminated. Despite the last payment being received on 24 May 2023, the landlord is seeking termination and possession on Wednesday 01 November 2023. Accordingly, the tenancy is terminated, and possession granted to the landlord on Wednesday 01 November 2023. I award rent arrears to the end of the tenancy of $1,429.71. Termination for breach of 14-day notice – rent arrears
The landlord has also made an application for termination under section 56(1) of the Act. The landlord has produced a 14-day breach notice dated 14 August 2023, requiring the tenant to remedy rent arrears by 30 August 2023. I am staffed that the notice was not remedied. Under section 56(2), where an application is made under section 56(1) and the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of determining the matter the landlord could have made an application under section 55(1)(a), the Tribunal must determine the application as if it had been made under that section. This provision applies as the tenant has failed to remedy the notice, and as of the date of hearing, the rent is more than 21 days in arrears. The tenancy can be terminated under section 56(2) of the Act. Termination for anti-social behaviour
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.
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.
There are two issues with termination under this provision. The first notice is dated 17 July 2023 and refers to anti-social behaviour as “Interfering with the reasonable peace of other neighbouring tenants – loud music” on 04 July 2023. The notice is referred to as the first notice and states the 90-day period commences on 17 July 2023. Two other notices dated 14 August 2023, and 01 September 2023, referred to as the second and third notices, have also been produced.
The provision requires the tenant to have engaged in three instances of anti- social behaviour within [ my emphasis] a ninety-day period, the commencement date of which must be stated in the notice. The 90-day period is stated as commencing on 17 July 2023.
The first instance of anti-social behaviour predates and is therefore outside the 90-day period.
Secondly, each notice must clearly describe behaviour that is, in fact, anti-social. It is the notice itself which must disclose alleged behaviour. In this case the notice does not give the time or how long the loud music is alleged to have occurred. The playing of loud music for a brief period in the daytime may not be considered anti-social, whereas playing loud music for prolonged periods at night may be so.
In my view the notice does not sufficiently describe behaviour that meets the definition of anti-social. To terminate the tenancy under section 55(1) (aa) of the Act each notice must comply. They do not. The application for termination for anti-social behaviour is declined. Costs
The landlord does not seek reimbursement of the filing fee and no order is made. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord seeks name suppression. As the landlord has been substantially successful, they are granted name suppression.
The landlord invites the Tribunal to consider suppression of the tenant’s name. The tenant has however not been wholly or substantially successful.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
In the case of Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135 at [2]-[3],[13], and [18], the Supreme Court stated the principle of open justice was fundamental to the common law system of civil and criminal justice. The Court stated that it was well established that there were circumstances in which the interests of justice required departure from the general principle, but only to the extent required to serve the administration of justice. The Court referred to the administration of justice standard as capable of accommodating the particular circumstances of individual cases with consideration given to the broader public interest. The Court went onto endorse the principle in ASB Bank Ltd v AB [2010] 3 NZLR 427 (HC), stating, that there must be specific adverse consequences sufficient to justify an exception to the rule, adding that the threshold was a high one.
As stated, the landlord is a social housing provider. [The landlord’s representative] states that the landlord assists those with mental health and addictions issues, the long term homeless, and those who are otherwise vulnerable. I understand that the tenant falls within this cohort. After considering the matter I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in section 95A (4). The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4674076 — net $1,429.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 01 November 2023	$1,429.71	Rent arrears to 01 November 2023
Net award	$1,429.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,429.71

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at midnight on Wednesday 01 November 2023.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,429.71 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

[The landlord’s representatives] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant
The landlord is a social housing provider. The tenancy commenced on 01 November 2022 and is periodic. On 01 September 2023, the landlord filed an application for termination of tenancy on the basis that, at the time of filing the application, the tenant was more than 21 days in arrears, the tenant had failed to remedy a 14-day breach notice for rent arrears issued on 14 August 2023, and that, within a 90-day period, the landlord had issued three notices for anti-social behaviour. Termination for rent arrears of more than 21 days
Under section 55(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”), the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy if it is established that the tenant was at least 21 days in arrears at the time the application was made. The weekly rent is $69.00. The Tribunal has calculated the rent due, and [The landlord’s representative] has produced rent summaries and given evidence under promise. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the rent arrears were at the time the application was filed were $ 828.43, which is more than 21 days. The tenancy is terminated. Despite the last payment being received on 24 May 2023, the landlord is seeking termination and possession on Wednesday 01 November 2023. Accordingly, the tenancy is terminated, and possession granted to the landlord on Wednesday 01 November 2023. I award rent arrears to the end of the tenancy of $1,429.71. Termination for breach of 14-day notice – rent arrears
The landlord has also made an application for termination under section 56(1) of the Act. The landlord has produced a 14-day breach notice dated 14 August 2023, requiring the tenant to remedy rent arrears by 30 August 2023. I am staffed that the notice was not remedied. Under section 56(2), where an application is made under section 56(1) and the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of determining the matter the landlord could have made an application under section 55(1)(a), the Tribunal must determine the application as if it had been made under that section. This provision applies as the tenant has failed to remedy the notice, and as of the date of hearing, the rent is more than 21 days in arrears. The tenancy can be terminated under section 56(2) of the Act. Termination for anti-social behaviour
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.
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.
There are two issues with termination under this provision. The first notice is dated 17 July 2023 and refers to anti-social behaviour as “Interfering with the reasonable peace of other neighbouring tenants – loud music” on 04 July 2023. The notice is referred to as the first notice and states the 90-day period commences on 17 July 2023. Two other notices dated 14 August 2023, and 01 September 2023, referred to as the second and third notices, have also been produced.
The provision requires the tenant to have engaged in three instances of anti- social behaviour within [ my emphasis] a ninety-day period, the commencement date of which must be stated in the notice. The 90-day period is stated as commencing on 17 July 2023.
The first instance of anti-social behaviour predates and is therefore outside the 90-day period.
Secondly, each notice must clearly describe behaviour that is, in fact, anti-social. It is the notice itself which must disclose alleged behaviour. In this case the notice does not give the time or how long the loud music is alleged to have occurred. The playing of loud music for a brief period in the daytime may not be considered anti-social, whereas playing loud music for prolonged periods at night may be so.
In my view the notice does not sufficiently describe behaviour that meets the definition of anti-social. To terminate the tenancy under section 55(1) (aa) of the Act each notice must comply. They do not. The application for termination for anti-social behaviour is declined. Costs
The landlord does not seek reimbursement of the filing fee and no order is made. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord seeks name suppression. As the landlord has been substantially successful, they are granted name suppression.
The landlord invites the Tribunal to consider suppression of the tenant’s name. The tenant has however not been wholly or substantially successful.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
In the case of Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135 at [2]-[3],[13], and [18], the Supreme Court stated the principle of open justice was fundamental to the common law system of civil and criminal justice. The Court stated that it was well established that there were circumstances in which the interests of justice required departure from the general principle, but only to the extent required to serve the administration of justice. The Court referred to the administration of justice standard as capable of accommodating the particular circumstances of individual cases with consideration given to the broader public interest. The Court went onto endorse the principle in ASB Bank Ltd v AB [2010] 3 NZLR 427 (HC), stating, that there must be specific adverse consequences sufficient to justify an exception to the rule, adding that the threshold was a high one.
As stated, the landlord is a social housing provider. [The landlord’s representative] states that the landlord assists those with mental health and addictions issues, the long term homeless, and those who are otherwise vulnerable. I understand that the tenant falls within this cohort. After considering the matter I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in section 95A (4). The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4674076 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4674076 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions