What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4744769 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 4744769?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4744769?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4744769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9736542-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4744769 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 4744769?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4744769?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4744769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9736542-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4744769 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 7 December 2023 together with the tenant’s key worker who attended in support.

The landlord’s name on the tenancy agreement is a limited liability company. The name on the application is a trust. The landlord party name is amended to the company name.

This tenancy began four months ago in August 2023. The tenant rented a home which is one of three units from the landlord who is a social housing provider.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of breach of the tenancy agreement and/or anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.

The tenant has cross applied for damages for failure by the landlord to provide an insulation statement.

Should the tenancy be terminated for breach?

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 capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

The landlord claimed that the tenant has breached their obligations by having a pet at the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement.

The landlord explained that they are a social housing provider and due to their units being in close proximity to other residents they have a no pets condition so as not to breach the quiet enjoyment of other residents. In this instance there are three units on the property.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 24 October 2023 and provided a photograph of a dog sitting on the grass outside the premises dated 28 November 2023.

The tenant claimed that the dog does not belong to him but he dog sits from time to time. He produced a letter he stated was from his brother in law claiming to be the owner of the dog and stated that the dog is no longer at his premises.

The tenant agreed that in future he would dog sit at his brother in law’s home which is nearby.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has given evidence that he has remedied the situation and the dog does not belong to him and is no longer at the premises.

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.

However, the Tribunal must not make the order if satisfied that doing so would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred, or the notices were given.

The landlord stated that the anti-social behaviour was excessive noise from the tenant’s unit past 10pm on 22 November 2023, verbal abuse of the neighbour on 27 November 2023 and threatening the neighbour on 16 November 2023. In support of the claims the landlord produced emails from the property manager referring to the incidents. The landlord referred to cctv footage and evidence from neighbours but did not provide these.

The landlord produced three notices given to the tenant. The notices were given to the tenant on three consecutive days 27, 28 and 29 November 2023. The notice given on 29 November 2023 related to an incident 13 days prior on 16 November 2023. The landlord explained that this delay was because they were waiting for Police information which still has not been provided.

The tenant disputed that his behaviour had been anti-social. He claimed that the loud music was from his neighbour’s unit, not his. He denied verbal abuse of his neighbour or threatening the neighbour. In support of his response, he produced a letter he stated was from his aunt.

The tenant’s key worker spoke in support of the tenant and agreed to giving him ongoing support.

I consider it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the notices were given as the legislation records that the landlord is to give the tenant notice “on each occasion” of anti-social behaviour claimed. However, in this case the final notice was issued in respect of alleged behaviour that occurred prior to the first and second notices.

It is clear from the wording of the legislation requiring notices to be sent after each anti-social behaviour claimed, with advice to the tenant of the right to the notice, that it was intended that tenants be given an opportunity to rectify the situation.

Giving the notices on three consecutive days with the third notice relating to behaviour that occurred 13 days earlier without the tenant having an opportunity to rectify the situation or challenge the notice would be inconsistent with that intention.

If Parliament had wanted to allow landlords to issue three notices at the same time, then it would have worded these provisions differently.

For these reasons, I cannot be satisfied that the landlord has established the grounds for termination under this section at this time, and the application is therefore dismissed.

The tenant is reminded of his obligation under section 40 of the RTA not to cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants or of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. Tenant cross application

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not included insulation details in the tenancy agreement.

A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. See section 13A(1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

[The landlord/s] failed to provide an insulation statement with the tenancy agreement which was signed in August. I find [The landlord/s] has committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord today advised that the property has compliant insulation and provided an insulation statement dated 1 May 2019 and a copy was given to the tenant. The landlord advised that they had thought this statement was included with the tenancy agreement but upon checking it was not there.

Having considered the evidence in this case I find that the landlord did not commit an unlawful act intentionally and that as the premises are insulated there is no effect on the tenant. in this situation I am not satisfied it is just to order exemplary damages and therefore no exemplary damages will be ordered. Suppression

The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant seeks suppression. Neither party has been successful with their claim. The Tribunal has considered the circumstances of this case and considers the that interests of the parties outweigh the public interest in the identifying details being published. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression as sought.