What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4677890 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 4677890?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $140.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677890?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677890?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9558504-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4677890 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 4677890?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $140.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677890?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677890?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9558504-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4677890 — Harassment

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4677890. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$140.42	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement (application: 4710172	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement (application: 4710172
Filing fee reimbursement (application: 4677890	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement (application: 4677890

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Tanya Michelle Edwards at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to the landlord’s, 11:59pm on Tuesday 24 October 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $181.29 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the landlord immediately to pay the amounts set out in the table below.
The balance of the bond of $2,098.70 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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.
The landlord has provided written statements from 5 residents living around or next to [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”) that have made constant complaints to from February to October 2023 and noting an increasing number of incidents being reported to it from September to October 2023. The landlord also confirmed that it had received repeated verbal complaints from a further 8 residents whose sleep was impacted, who had lost flatmates and/or whose children were afraid to go outside of the house as they feared for their safety.
The landlord has also provided a noise report from Auckland Council that provides a summary of call outs from noise control over the past 90 days that correlates to the statements from the surrounding residents.
The landlord’s evidence clearly shows that the anti-social behaviour complained of is causing significant stress on the residents surrounding the premises and encroaching on their quiet enjoyment of their properties. None of these residents are tenants of the landlord.
The landlord provided the tenant with 3 notices for anti-social behaviour as follows: a. On 14 September 2023 for significant noise, threatening behaviour and reports of violence at 4am; b. On 9 October 2023 for drums and loud instruments disturbing neighbouring properties at 3am; and c. On 11 October 2023 for loud musical instruments, including drums, at 4:30am and again at 9am.
I am satisfied that these notices comply with the requirements set out in s55A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).
The tenant accepted that her guests had engaged in the anti-social behaviour complained of, apologised to the landlord and took full responsibility for not having been able to control the guests that had invited themselves to the premises and would not listen to her pleas for them to leave and/or to cease the anti-social behaviour. She did not invoke any of the defences set out in s55A(3) of the Act.
Given the evidence provided to me by the landlord, that was not disputed by the tenant, I am 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, which was made on 11 October 2023, which was less than 28 days after the landlord issued the tenant with the third notice on 11 October 2023.
The antisocial behaviour complained of meets the definition of harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor, set out in s55A(7) of the Act.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy considering 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.
In accordance with s55A(4), in deciding whether to terminate the tenancy, I was not able to consider the impact that terminating the tenancy would have on the tenant, although I do consider that the impact will be considerable and that the evidence provided shows she herself was a victim of circumstances that she found herself unable to control.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the two sets of filing fees it incurred in making the first application 4677890 filed on 6 September 2023 and for the updated application 4710172 filed on 11 October 2023.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4677890. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$140.42	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement (application: 4710172	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement (application: 4710172
Filing fee reimbursement (application: 4677890	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement (application: 4677890

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Tanya Michelle Edwards at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to the landlord’s, 11:59pm on Tuesday 24 October 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $181.29 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the landlord immediately to pay the amounts set out in the table below.
The balance of the bond of $2,098.70 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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.
The landlord has provided written statements from 5 residents living around or next to [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”) that have made constant complaints to from February to October 2023 and noting an increasing number of incidents being reported to it from September to October 2023. The landlord also confirmed that it had received repeated verbal complaints from a further 8 residents whose sleep was impacted, who had lost flatmates and/or whose children were afraid to go outside of the house as they feared for their safety.
The landlord has also provided a noise report from Auckland Council that provides a summary of call outs from noise control over the past 90 days that correlates to the statements from the surrounding residents.
The landlord’s evidence clearly shows that the anti-social behaviour complained of is causing significant stress on the residents surrounding the premises and encroaching on their quiet enjoyment of their properties. None of these residents are tenants of the landlord.
The landlord provided the tenant with 3 notices for anti-social behaviour as follows: a. On 14 September 2023 for significant noise, threatening behaviour and reports of violence at 4am; b. On 9 October 2023 for drums and loud instruments disturbing neighbouring properties at 3am; and c. On 11 October 2023 for loud musical instruments, including drums, at 4:30am and again at 9am.
I am satisfied that these notices comply with the requirements set out in s55A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).
The tenant accepted that her guests had engaged in the anti-social behaviour complained of, apologised to the landlord and took full responsibility for not having been able to control the guests that had invited themselves to the premises and would not listen to her pleas for them to leave and/or to cease the anti-social behaviour. She did not invoke any of the defences set out in s55A(3) of the Act.
Given the evidence provided to me by the landlord, that was not disputed by the tenant, I am 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, which was made on 11 October 2023, which was less than 28 days after the landlord issued the tenant with the third notice on 11 October 2023.
The antisocial behaviour complained of meets the definition of harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor, set out in s55A(7) of the Act.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy considering 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.
In accordance with s55A(4), in deciding whether to terminate the tenancy, I was not able to consider the impact that terminating the tenancy would have on the tenant, although I do consider that the impact will be considerable and that the evidence provided shows she herself was a victim of circumstances that she found herself unable to control.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the two sets of filing fees it incurred in making the first application 4677890 filed on 6 September 2023 and for the updated application 4710172 filed on 11 October 2023.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677890 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677890 — 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