What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4722170?

The tribunal order states: Subject to order 2, the tenancy of Kellie Andrews at 54 Langstone Street,

How much money was awarded in case 4722170?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $360.61 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4722170?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4722170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9740543-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4722170?

The tribunal order states: Subject to order 2, the tenancy of Kellie Andrews at 54 Langstone Street,

How much money was awarded in case 4722170?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $360.61 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4722170?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4722170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9740543-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

54 Langstone Street, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4722170 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4722170 — net $381.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to 27/10/23	$360.61	Water rates to 27/10/23
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$381.05
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$381.05

Subject to order 2, the tenancy of Kellie Andrews at 54 Langstone Street, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112 is terminated, and possession is granted to Katrina McChesney and Campbell McChesney, at 11:59pm on Friday 26 January 2024.

If there are any further incidents of anti-social behaviour prior to the termination date, the applicants may apply on 48 hours’ notice for a teleconference hearing for the Tribunal to consider an earlier termination date.

Kellie Andrews must pay Katrina McChesney and Campbell McChesney $381.05 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlords have applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenant’s periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour. They have also applied for payment of outgoings. Anti-social behaviour Law

The Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that: a. on three 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 within 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 Tribunal must not make an order if it satisfied doing so would be unfair in the circumstances or because the notices were retaliatory. The Tribunal cannot take into account the effect of termination on the tenant.

Antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.

The landlords have served four notices of anti-social behaviour on the tenant: a. 30 July 2023: for an incident on 25 July of excessive noise, aggressive behaviour, and shouting and screaming in the early hours of the morning that woke neighbours. b. 18 September 2023: for an incident on the afternoon of 10 September involving excessive noise from a motor scooter, including burnouts causing excessive tyre smoke. c. 24 October 2023: for an incident on the night of 23 October involving loud fighting in the middle of the night that woke neighbours. Fighting began on the property and moved out onto the street. Neighbours reported hearing screaming and the sound of items being broken. d. 13 November: for an incident in the early hours of 12 November involving arguing, swearing, and raised voices that woke neighbours, and which caused distress for the young daughter of one of the neighbours.

Notices 1 to 3 occurred within a 90-day period. The application was filed on 25 October, within 28 days of the final notice. Notices 2 to 4 also occurred within a 90-day period, although this factor is not necessary to establish jurisdiction.

The primary issue is whether each incident involved anti-social behaviour. The landlords called one of the neighbours (neighbour 1) to give evidence and presented contemporaneous messaging from two other neighbours.

The tenant did not accept that the behaviour coming from her household was anti-social, and she made allegations about neighbour 1 and her children. A neighbour from across the road (neighbour A) gave evidence on her behalf, saying she had never heard any parties or altercations and that any problems in the neighbourhood mainly stemmed from neighbour 1’s pre-teen children.

Having considered all the written and oral evidence, I find that the threshold for anti-social behaviour has been met. Neighbour 1 gave evidence of recurring issues during 2023, including parties with loud music, numerous domestic disputes, rude and threatening behaviour, Police attendances, and aggressive interactions involving alcohol. She referred to two particular incidents in April 2023 which, although outside the 90-day period, are relevant in showing a pattern of behaviour.

The incident on 25 July was reported by a second neighbour. They sent the landlords several messages: ... We seem to be having issues with your tenant and I’m wondering if you are aware they are up all night yelling and screaming most nights ☹ its exhausting. ... I’m talking 3am 4am 5am all nights of the week. ... ... We have kids it’s starting to effect them now ... I’m too scared to approach them as they seem intimidating ...

The incident on 10 September was reported by neighbour 1. She also reported fighting on the property and out on the road a week or so prior.

The incident on 23 October was reported by neighbour 1 and a third neighbour.

The incident on 12 November was reported by neighbour 1. She said in a message that the noise woke her daughter up, who was crying and said she was really scared.

In addition to these incidents, the landlords provided evidence of Police contact and attendances, two involving allegations of drunkenness and one involving an alleged family harm incident on 7 October (which had also been reported to the landlords by a neighbour). The landlords also allege that the tenant was intimidating and obstructive on 4 November when she refused to allow entry for an inspection (for which notice was given). Although these events do not specifically relate to the anti-social incidents, they are relevant in a general way when considering the reliability of the competing evidence.

I accept that neighbour A, who gave evidence on behalf of the tenant, has a genuinely held view about the dynamics between the tenant and neighbour 1, and in particular the behaviour of neighbour 1’s pre-teen children. However, the claim involves the conduct of the tenant and adults at the premises, rather than the behaviour of young children, and there are at least three neighbours who have reported their concerns to the landlords.

Although the incidents described are at the lower end of the scale, they nevertheless more than minor and amount to antisocial behaviour. Therefore, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. There is nothing about the circumstances in which the events occurred, or notices were given, that would result in unfairness, and the notices are not retaliatory. I cannot take into account any impact on the tenant.

The landlords initially requested termination prior to Christmas. That was unrealistic and they proposed an alternative of 8 January 2024. With the Christmas period intervening, this is also slightly unrealistic. I have therefore fixed a date of 26 January 2024. This will allow the tenant sufficient time to look for alternative accommodation, and for the landlords to advertise for new tenants.

The tenant is reminded that the landlords are entitled to show prospective tenants through the premises while her tenancy is still current.

Because there is potential for ongoing issues, I have also included a provision that the landlords may apply for an earlier termination date, on short notice, if there are any further incidents of anti-social behaviour. If this occurs, they should contact the Court registrar detailing what has happened. Water and rubbish

The landlords have applied for reimbursement of water and rubbish charges.

Tenants are responsible for outgoings solely attributable to their occupation of the premises. They are therefore responsible for any metered water charges (but not for fixed charges). There was a leak at the property, which was repaired soon after the start of the tenancy. The Council has allowed a partial remission for the relevant period. I find that the amount covered by the four invoices provided is payable, less the amounts paid on account. I have also deducted the fixed charges included in the invoices.

The rubbish charges claimed are a component of the landlords’ rates. Property owners cannot opt out of the charges, although they can choose the level of service provided. Because the charges are not solely attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises, they are payable by the landlords. Filing fee and suppression

Because the landlords have largely succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlords did not apply for name suppression. J P Smith 11 December 2023

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4722170 — net $381.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to 27/10/23	$360.61	Water rates to 27/10/23
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$381.05
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$381.05