What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4701910?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jacob Benson and Angel Moffat at Unit/Flat 8, 16 Rutherford

How much money was awarded in case 4701910?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4701910?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4701910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9558808-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4701910?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jacob Benson and Angel Moffat at Unit/Flat 8, 16 Rutherford

How much money was awarded in case 4701910?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4701910?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4701910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9558808-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 8, 16 Rutherford Street, Woolston, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4701910 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Jacob Benson and Angel Moffat at Unit/Flat 8, 16 Rutherford Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Xclusive Property Management NZ 2013 Limited As Agent For Nick & Sandra Butler Carol, at 5pm on Monday, 6 November 2023.
Jacob Benson and Angel Moffat must pay the landlord $20.44 immediately, being the Tribunal application fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 claims that the tenant has breached their obligations by causing or permitting interference with the reasonable peace and quiet of the neighbourhood. A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided documentary evidence from two neighbours and evidence of police callouts to the property. The neighbours did not attend the hearing to be cross examined by the tenants or questioned by the Tribunal. The landlord also played audio recordings that were provided to it by one of the neighbours. Again, that neighbour did not attend to confirm when the recordings were taken, who was being recorded or otherwise authenticate the audio files.
In Oaks Property Management Limited v Tenant [2022] NZTT 4345545 the Tribunal noted: “[6]... (b)Unless the Tribunal has evidence directly from the people who saw or heard the antisocial behaviour,or has evidence such as photographs or videos which show the antisocial behaviour or Police reports or noise control reports which describe the behaviour, it cannot act simply on what the landlord has been told by neighbours. When the landlord gives evidence of what they have [been] told, but not witnessed themselves it is hearsay. Hearsay evidence is evidence that is not directly seen, heard or spoken by the person that is giving the evidence to the Tribunal. Whilst the Tribunal can accept hearsay evidence it is always given much less weight than evidence given by the person who was there, that is because the person who was there can answer questions about what they saw or heard and the Adjudicator can make an assessment on the witnesses credibility... [8] If the tenant’s neighbours are concerned about behaviour, they would be best to contact the police or noise control immediately, who can investigate the behaviour and complaints. Neighbours who then report to landlords need to be specific about the type of behaviour, when it occurred and who did it, and also be aware that the landlord has the burden of proof of proving that the tenant is engaging in any antisocial behaviour, this may mean that the neighbours will be called upon to give evidence or should provide any documentary evidence such as photographs or video recordings to the landlord. A landlord who is unable to meet the evidential burden will not be able to prove their claim.”
Most the landlord’s evidence was hearsay. The audio files were not verified by the person who made them. However, the tenants acknowledged that the recordings were of them.
The audio files played at the hearing were disturbing and clearly demonstrate interference with the reasonable peace and quiet of the neighbourhood. There were multiple recordings taken over three days of screaming, arguing and abusive language.
Following one of the recordings, one of the tenants has been charged with creating a disturbance. The tenant maintained that she is innocent until proven guilty. The Tribunal is not required to wait until the criminal proceedings have been determined before it makes a decision on the landlord’s application for termination.
The combined effect of the audio recordings and the charges being laid, lead me to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the tenant has breached the reasonable peace and quiet of the neighbourhood. The landlord established its claim by a fine margin, and partly because the tenants accepted that the recordings were of them. I reiterate the points made by the adjudicator in Oaks Property Management Limited v Tenant.
The breach is not capable of remedy because the disturbances have been created. They cannot be “undone” and there effect on the neighbours cannot be reversed.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The tenants claim that they are taking steps to address anger management issues but provided no corroborative evidence. Weighed against that, is documentary evidence from the neighbours advising that their young children are witnessing the tenant’s disturbances and are frightened by it. Having heard the recordings, a parent would be concerned about what their child is witnessing and hearing from these tenants.
The tenancy is terminated and possession granted to the landlord at 5pm on Monday, 6 November 2023.
The landlord also sought termination on the basis that the tenants had threatened a neighbour. See s55(1)(c) RTA. The evidence did not establish that it is more likely than not that the tenant had threatened anyone. The recording which the landlord relied on demonstrated abusive name calling toward the tenant but was not a threat to assault the neighbour.
As the landlord was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the tribunal application fee.

Order

The tenancy of Jacob Benson and Angel Moffat at Unit/Flat 8, 16 Rutherford Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Xclusive Property Management NZ 2013 Limited As Agent For Nick & Sandra Butler Carol, at 5pm on Monday, 6 November 2023.
Jacob Benson and Angel Moffat must pay the landlord $20.44 immediately, being the Tribunal application fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 claims that the tenant has breached their obligations by causing or permitting interference with the reasonable peace and quiet of the neighbourhood. A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided documentary evidence from two neighbours and evidence of police callouts to the property. The neighbours did not attend the hearing to be cross examined by the tenants or questioned by the Tribunal. The landlord also played audio recordings that were provided to it by one of the neighbours. Again, that neighbour did not attend to confirm when the recordings were taken, who was being recorded or otherwise authenticate the audio files.
In Oaks Property Management Limited v Tenant [2022] NZTT 4345545 the Tribunal noted: “[6]... (b)Unless the Tribunal has evidence directly from the people who saw or heard the antisocial behaviour,or has evidence such as photographs or videos which show the antisocial behaviour or Police reports or noise control reports which describe the behaviour, it cannot act simply on what the landlord has been told by neighbours. When the landlord gives evidence of what they have [been] told, but not witnessed themselves it is hearsay. Hearsay evidence is evidence that is not directly seen, heard or spoken by the person that is giving the evidence to the Tribunal. Whilst the Tribunal can accept hearsay evidence it is always given much less weight than evidence given by the person who was there, that is because the person who was there can answer questions about what they saw or heard and the Adjudicator can make an assessment on the witnesses credibility... [8] If the tenant’s neighbours are concerned about behaviour, they would be best to contact the police or noise control immediately, who can investigate the behaviour and complaints. Neighbours who then report to landlords need to be specific about the type of behaviour, when it occurred and who did it, and also be aware that the landlord has the burden of proof of proving that the tenant is engaging in any antisocial behaviour, this may mean that the neighbours will be called upon to give evidence or should provide any documentary evidence such as photographs or video recordings to the landlord. A landlord who is unable to meet the evidential burden will not be able to prove their claim.”
Most the landlord’s evidence was hearsay. The audio files were not verified by the person who made them. However, the tenants acknowledged that the recordings were of them.
The audio files played at the hearing were disturbing and clearly demonstrate interference with the reasonable peace and quiet of the neighbourhood. There were multiple recordings taken over three days of screaming, arguing and abusive language.
Following one of the recordings, one of the tenants has been charged with creating a disturbance. The tenant maintained that she is innocent until proven guilty. The Tribunal is not required to wait until the criminal proceedings have been determined before it makes a decision on the landlord’s application for termination.
The combined effect of the audio recordings and the charges being laid, lead me to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the tenant has breached the reasonable peace and quiet of the neighbourhood. The landlord established its claim by a fine margin, and partly because the tenants accepted that the recordings were of them. I reiterate the points made by the adjudicator in Oaks Property Management Limited v Tenant.
The breach is not capable of remedy because the disturbances have been created. They cannot be “undone” and there effect on the neighbours cannot be reversed.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The tenants claim that they are taking steps to address anger management issues but provided no corroborative evidence. Weighed against that, is documentary evidence from the neighbours advising that their young children are witnessing the tenant’s disturbances and are frightened by it. Having heard the recordings, a parent would be concerned about what their child is witnessing and hearing from these tenants.
The tenancy is terminated and possession granted to the landlord at 5pm on Monday, 6 November 2023.
The landlord also sought termination on the basis that the tenants had threatened a neighbour. See s55(1)(c) RTA. The evidence did not establish that it is more likely than not that the tenant had threatened anyone. The recording which the landlord relied on demonstrated abusive name calling toward the tenant but was not a threat to assault the neighbour.
As the landlord was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4701910 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 8, 16 Rutherford Street, Woolston, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4701910 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 8, 16 Rutherford Street, Woolston, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions