What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4690509 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 4690509?

11:59pm on Friday 3 November 2023. 3…: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4690509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4690509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9552749-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4690509 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 4690509?

11:59pm on Friday 3 November 2023. 3…: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4690509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4690509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9552749-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 27 Lyell Road, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4690509 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4690509. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
11:59pm on Friday 3 November 2023. 3. Jade Pokai Mcgarrett and Jazmyne-lee Na-tayesha Kingi are to pay [The landlord/s	$20.44		11:59pm on Friday 3 November 2023. 3. Jade Pokai Mcgarrett and Jazmyne-lee Na-tayesha Kingi are to pay [The landlord/s

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 Jade Pokai Mcgarrett and Jazmyne-lee Na-tayesha Kingi at Unit/Flat 1, 27 Lyell Road, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm on Friday 3 November 2023.
Jade Pokai Mcgarrett and Jazmyne-lee Na-tayesha Kingi are to pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately.
The claim for refund of the bond is dismissed.

Reasons

[The property manager/s] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. Mr Mcgarrett and Ms Kingi, the tenants, also both 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, for an order terminating because of failure to remedy a breach of the tenancy agreement, refund of the bond and refund of the application fee.
Any party bringing a claim before the Tenancy Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim on the balance of probabilities. They must prove it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects, such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be consistent and supported by other acceptable evidence.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is as follows: a. That on the afternoon of 1 September 2023, Mr Mcgarrett threatened to search the neighbour’s property for his missing package, believing the neighbour had his package, that he told her he can kill and can shoot, that he swore at a 7-year-old child of the family telling him to come outside and show him where the package was. He is alleged to have told her he would get the mongrel mob involved, that he was a mob prospect for 5 years and if the mob found out they will make her homeless and kick them out of the house and take all their belongings. He is alleged to have told the neighbour he had been in jail for sexual assault and violence, threatened to break her window and go inside to find his package himself. He is also alleged to have threatened her further by telling her he would have punched her face if she wasn’t holding her son and accused her of using her son to protect her while speaking with him. The neighbour said she did not have the tenants’ package. The property manager said the tenants had contacted her about the missing package. This incident was the subject of the first notice for anti-social behaviour dated 18 September 2023. b. Mr Mcgarrett denied these allegations and said he did not say those things but acknowledged that words were exchanged and things got heated between him and the neighbour. He said they believed their package had been mistakenly delivered to the neighbour’s house and he was trying to get it back. Due to the neighbour’s behaviour, he did not believe that she did not have their package at the time. Subsequently, Mr Mcgarrett said they contacted the company they bought the package from, obtained and refund and sorted it out. c. The landlord said on 2 September 2023 Mr Mcgarrett swore at and intimidated the neighbour and her sister in a very aggressive manner, telling the neighbour’s sister to “mind your fucken business” and told her to “get her fucken head back in that window”. When the neighbour asked Mr Mcgarrett to leave her section of the property he apparently told them, “I don’t give a fuck”, swore at them and told them he had rung the mob to come pull up on them but they did not show up. The neighbour apparently retreated to inside her flat for safety and called the police. The police issued a Trespass Notice to Mr Mcgarrett. This incident was the subject of a second anti-social behaviour notice dated 19 September 2023. d. Mr Mcgarrett said they had gone out and returned to find their sheet on the ground, which they believed was due to the neighbour and that he did tell her to “fuck up”. He acknowledged the police came and he was served with a Trespass Notice which provided that he was not to be within 1 metre of the neighbour’s front door. e. On 6 September 2023, the landlord said the tenants were involved in swearing and intimidating the neighbour and breached the Trespass Notice. They said Ms Kingi banged on the neighbour’s door and an altercation started about the use of the clothesline, that Ms Kingi had a bat and was threatening to give the neighbour a hiding with the bat but that Mr Mcgarrett was holding her back. The police were called and Mr Mcgarrett was arrested for breaching the Trespass Notice. This incident was the subject of a third anti-social behaviour notice also dated 19 September 2023, which had a different incident date to the other notice dated 19 September 2023. An email statement from the neighbour was provided by the landlord in relation to all incidents alleged involving the neighbour. f. The tenants said the allegations were false, that they hung out their sheet, went out and returned to find the sheet on the ground. Ms Kingi said she had agreed the neighbour could use her back yard clothesline but that she would need it for her sheets and blankets. She said she did go to talk to the neighbour about this but did not have a bat, that the neighbour started yelling and going off, that they tried to de-escalate the situation without success. Ms Kingi said the neighbour had mentioned her and Mr Mcgarrett’s baby who had passed, which was very upsetting. g. The parties said on 16 September 2023 there was an assault on Mr Mcgarrett in his home by the neighbour’s partner and two other men, who apparently rushed in through the door and assaulted him. As a result of this, the property manager said the tenants contacted her about the assault, the neighbour was provided with her own anti-social behaviour notice and the police were involved. She said the neighbour has now given notice that she will be leaving her property shortly. However, the property manager continued to have concerns about these tenants remaining at the property as they would be in close quarters with any future tenants coming into the neighbour’s flat. h. On 11 October 2023, the property manager visited the property to carry out a routine property inspection. She said she discovered that Mr Mcgarrett had installed some security cameras without consent, drilling through the walls for this and that the workmanship was of a poor standard and potentially allowed the weather in or weakened the boards. She discussed this with Mr Mcgarrett and said he became aggressive with her, told her to “get fucked” a number of times and also called her a bitch. The property manager said that is not the first time he has sworn at her. This incident is the subject of a fourth anti-social behaviour notice dated 11 October 2023. i. Mr Mcgarrett said he had consent to install one security camera in the carport, which was acknowledged by the property manager, but decided to install other security cameras and did the best he could with his budget. He said he told the property manager that if she did not care about the safety of his family, then “fuck you”. He added that he felt the property manager never believes their side of things.
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.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that it is more likely than not that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
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.
Pursuant to section 55(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
Therefore, the tenancy is terminated on the grounds of anti-social behaviour.
The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, pursuant to section 56 RTA. The landlord said the issues raised in the 14-day notices dated 27 June 2023 about an unapproved dog at the property, and dated 19 September 2023 in relation to damage at the property, provided to the tenants were largely resolved. As I have terminated the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour, I do not need to make any findings in relation to the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy pursuant to section 56 RTA. Refund bond
The landlord claimed a refund of the bond. However, the landlord has not filed a claim for rent arrears or compensation/damages. As such, I find there are insufficient grounds for the bond to be refunded to the landlord currently. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for refund of the bond is dismissed. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. Neither tenant requested name suppression. As the landlord has been successful with the claim, they are entitled to suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4690509. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
11:59pm on Friday 3 November 2023. 3. Jade Pokai Mcgarrett and Jazmyne-lee Na-tayesha Kingi are to pay [The landlord/s	$20.44		11:59pm on Friday 3 November 2023. 3. Jade Pokai Mcgarrett and Jazmyne-lee Na-tayesha Kingi are to pay [The landlord/s

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 Jade Pokai Mcgarrett and Jazmyne-lee Na-tayesha Kingi at Unit/Flat 1, 27 Lyell Road, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm on Friday 3 November 2023.
Jade Pokai Mcgarrett and Jazmyne-lee Na-tayesha Kingi are to pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately.
The claim for refund of the bond is dismissed.

Reasons

[The property manager/s] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. Mr Mcgarrett and Ms Kingi, the tenants, also both 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, for an order terminating because of failure to remedy a breach of the tenancy agreement, refund of the bond and refund of the application fee.
Any party bringing a claim before the Tenancy Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim on the balance of probabilities. They must prove it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects, such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be consistent and supported by other acceptable evidence.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is as follows: a. That on the afternoon of 1 September 2023, Mr Mcgarrett threatened to search the neighbour’s property for his missing package, believing the neighbour had his package, that he told her he can kill and can shoot, that he swore at a 7-year-old child of the family telling him to come outside and show him where the package was. He is alleged to have told her he would get the mongrel mob involved, that he was a mob prospect for 5 years and if the mob found out they will make her homeless and kick them out of the house and take all their belongings. He is alleged to have told the neighbour he had been in jail for sexual assault and violence, threatened to break her window and go inside to find his package himself. He is also alleged to have threatened her further by telling her he would have punched her face if she wasn’t holding her son and accused her of using her son to protect her while speaking with him. The neighbour said she did not have the tenants’ package. The property manager said the tenants had contacted her about the missing package. This incident was the subject of the first notice for anti-social behaviour dated 18 September 2023. b. Mr Mcgarrett denied these allegations and said he did not say those things but acknowledged that words were exchanged and things got heated between him and the neighbour. He said they believed their package had been mistakenly delivered to the neighbour’s house and he was trying to get it back. Due to the neighbour’s behaviour, he did not believe that she did not have their package at the time. Subsequently, Mr Mcgarrett said they contacted the company they bought the package from, obtained and refund and sorted it out. c. The landlord said on 2 September 2023 Mr Mcgarrett swore at and intimidated the neighbour and her sister in a very aggressive manner, telling the neighbour’s sister to “mind your fucken business” and told her to “get her fucken head back in that window”. When the neighbour asked Mr Mcgarrett to leave her section of the property he apparently told them, “I don’t give a fuck”, swore at them and told them he had rung the mob to come pull up on them but they did not show up. The neighbour apparently retreated to inside her flat for safety and called the police. The police issued a Trespass Notice to Mr Mcgarrett. This incident was the subject of a second anti-social behaviour notice dated 19 September 2023. d. Mr Mcgarrett said they had gone out and returned to find their sheet on the ground, which they believed was due to the neighbour and that he did tell her to “fuck up”. He acknowledged the police came and he was served with a Trespass Notice which provided that he was not to be within 1 metre of the neighbour’s front door. e. On 6 September 2023, the landlord said the tenants were involved in swearing and intimidating the neighbour and breached the Trespass Notice. They said Ms Kingi banged on the neighbour’s door and an altercation started about the use of the clothesline, that Ms Kingi had a bat and was threatening to give the neighbour a hiding with the bat but that Mr Mcgarrett was holding her back. The police were called and Mr Mcgarrett was arrested for breaching the Trespass Notice. This incident was the subject of a third anti-social behaviour notice also dated 19 September 2023, which had a different incident date to the other notice dated 19 September 2023. An email statement from the neighbour was provided by the landlord in relation to all incidents alleged involving the neighbour. f. The tenants said the allegations were false, that they hung out their sheet, went out and returned to find the sheet on the ground. Ms Kingi said she had agreed the neighbour could use her back yard clothesline but that she would need it for her sheets and blankets. She said she did go to talk to the neighbour about this but did not have a bat, that the neighbour started yelling and going off, that they tried to de-escalate the situation without success. Ms Kingi said the neighbour had mentioned her and Mr Mcgarrett’s baby who had passed, which was very upsetting. g. The parties said on 16 September 2023 there was an assault on Mr Mcgarrett in his home by the neighbour’s partner and two other men, who apparently rushed in through the door and assaulted him. As a result of this, the property manager said the tenants contacted her about the assault, the neighbour was provided with her own anti-social behaviour notice and the police were involved. She said the neighbour has now given notice that she will be leaving her property shortly. However, the property manager continued to have concerns about these tenants remaining at the property as they would be in close quarters with any future tenants coming into the neighbour’s flat. h. On 11 October 2023, the property manager visited the property to carry out a routine property inspection. She said she discovered that Mr Mcgarrett had installed some security cameras without consent, drilling through the walls for this and that the workmanship was of a poor standard and potentially allowed the weather in or weakened the boards. She discussed this with Mr Mcgarrett and said he became aggressive with her, told her to “get fucked” a number of times and also called her a bitch. The property manager said that is not the first time he has sworn at her. This incident is the subject of a fourth anti-social behaviour notice dated 11 October 2023. i. Mr Mcgarrett said he had consent to install one security camera in the carport, which was acknowledged by the property manager, but decided to install other security cameras and did the best he could with his budget. He said he told the property manager that if she did not care about the safety of his family, then “fuck you”. He added that he felt the property manager never believes their side of things.
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.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that it is more likely than not that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
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.
Pursuant to section 55(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
Therefore, the tenancy is terminated on the grounds of anti-social behaviour.
The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, pursuant to section 56 RTA. The landlord said the issues raised in the 14-day notices dated 27 June 2023 about an unapproved dog at the property, and dated 19 September 2023 in relation to damage at the property, provided to the tenants were largely resolved. As I have terminated the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour, I do not need to make any findings in relation to the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy pursuant to section 56 RTA. Refund bond
The landlord claimed a refund of the bond. However, the landlord has not filed a claim for rent arrears or compensation/damages. As such, I find there are insufficient grounds for the bond to be refunded to the landlord currently. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for refund of the bond is dismissed. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. Neither tenant requested name suppression. As the landlord has been successful with the claim, they are entitled to suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4690509 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 27 Lyell Road, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4690509 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 27 Lyell Road, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions