What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4707269 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 4707269?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4707269?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4707269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9568506-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4707269 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 4707269?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4707269?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4707269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9568506-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4707269 — Harassment

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. The landlord’s application for termination is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing by telephone. I telephoned the tenant several times but his telephone would not connect. I am satisfied he has been served and so the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.
The Applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) defines what is anti-social behaviour and provides for strict processes that should be followed by the landlord when giving notices for anti-social behaviour that may lead to termination.
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 RTA 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 (s 55A(7), RTA).
For a termination to be granted under s 55A, the three notices must relate to behaviour that meets the subsection 7 definition. The Tribunal assesses whether the behaviour described in the notices would be antisocial behaviour.
The landlord’s first anti-social behaviour notice did not advise the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal to challenge the notice. Therefore, this means that the first notice does not meet the statutory test and the application cannot succeed. The application is dismissed.
In any event, the landlord did not have probative evidence or witness evidence of the alleged act. It is difficult for the Tribunal to make a finding about a breach where there is no direct evidence available from those who have experienced the behaviour alleged to have occurred. Limited weight can be given to hearsay evidence, when the person who made the statement is not available to give direct evidence and be questioned on their evidence. Here there were no witnesses, and the representative for the landlord was unable to give direct evidence on any of the allegations relied upon as she had not personally witnessed the events.
The landlord’s evidence is limited to the landlord’s representative repeating what others have told her. Limited weight can be given to such evidence because such evidence is not given under oath and cannot be tested under cross examination.
The tenant is on notice that three further anti-social behaviour incidents of breach with supporting evidence may result in termination of the tenancy.
Because the landlord has not been successful the filing fee is not reimbursed.
I have exercised my initiative in ordering the suppression of the tenant details. The application was dismissed and any publication of his name, given the nature of the claim, may have an unfair and disproportionate impact on him (s 95A(4), RTA).

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. The landlord’s application for termination is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing by telephone. I telephoned the tenant several times but his telephone would not connect. I am satisfied he has been served and so the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.
The Applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) defines what is anti-social behaviour and provides for strict processes that should be followed by the landlord when giving notices for anti-social behaviour that may lead to termination.
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 RTA 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 (s 55A(7), RTA).
For a termination to be granted under s 55A, the three notices must relate to behaviour that meets the subsection 7 definition. The Tribunal assesses whether the behaviour described in the notices would be antisocial behaviour.
The landlord’s first anti-social behaviour notice did not advise the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal to challenge the notice. Therefore, this means that the first notice does not meet the statutory test and the application cannot succeed. The application is dismissed.
In any event, the landlord did not have probative evidence or witness evidence of the alleged act. It is difficult for the Tribunal to make a finding about a breach where there is no direct evidence available from those who have experienced the behaviour alleged to have occurred. Limited weight can be given to hearsay evidence, when the person who made the statement is not available to give direct evidence and be questioned on their evidence. Here there were no witnesses, and the representative for the landlord was unable to give direct evidence on any of the allegations relied upon as she had not personally witnessed the events.
The landlord’s evidence is limited to the landlord’s representative repeating what others have told her. Limited weight can be given to such evidence because such evidence is not given under oath and cannot be tested under cross examination.
The tenant is on notice that three further anti-social behaviour incidents of breach with supporting evidence may result in termination of the tenancy.
Because the landlord has not been successful the filing fee is not reimbursed.
I have exercised my initiative in ordering the suppression of the tenant details. The application was dismissed and any publication of his name, given the nature of the claim, may have an unfair and disproportionate impact on him (s 95A(4), RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4707269 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4707269 — 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