What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4747073?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Chante Alison Roycroft at 45 Puckey Avenue, Kaitaia 0410 is

How much money was awarded in case 4747073?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4747073?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4747073?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9875879-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4747073?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Chante Alison Roycroft at 45 Puckey Avenue, Kaitaia 0410 is

How much money was awarded in case 4747073?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4747073?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4747073?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9875879-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

45 Puckey Avenue, Kaitaia 0410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4747073 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Chante Alison Roycroft at 45 Puckey Avenue, Kaitaia 0410 is terminated, and possession is granted to Far North Real Estate (2010) Limited as agent for Richard Lyon Sarah, at 11.59pm on Sunday 4 February 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Vokins represented the landlord. I conducted the hearing by phone.
I first heard the application in Kaitaia on 12 January 2024. The parties appeared in person. I adjourned the hearing but allowed the landlord to have the application urgently recalled which led to the hearing today.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour by the tenant or someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour comprises continual barking by the tenant’s dog, and the playing of loud music sometime into the early hours of the morning.
The landlord has received multiple complaints from neighbours. A complaint was made on 12 January 2024 after the last hearing ended with further complaints on 14, 17 and 18 January 2024. The legal requirements
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.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

When I first heard the application, the landlord established grounds to terminate the tenancy because it had issued 3 separate notices that complied with the statutory requirements.
The Tribunal is sometimes reluctant to terminate tenancies for anti-social behaviour especially when it considers that the tenant will stop the behaviour to preserve the tenancy. That is what I considered would happen in this case.
For that reason, I adjourned the hearing based on the tenant’s assurances that she would endeavour to ensure there were no further instances of behaviour that caused alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
I have considered the evidence presented by the parties, both oral and documentary, presented at the first hearing. And I have considered the evidence each party gave today. The tenant said she is prepared to stop the disturbances that affect her neighbours, but not yet, maybe next week.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred at the premises by the tenant or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, including her son and her brother.
The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required by 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 considering 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.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The Tribunal provided the tenant the opportunity to stop the behaviour that has resulted in the notices of anti-social behaviour. The breaches by the tenant have been on-going despite that. She appears to have made little or no effort to ensure that the anti-social behaviour ceased. Her suggestion today that she might make changes next week is not sufficient for me to decline the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy.
I have granted the landlord possession on Sunday 4 February 2024. That allows the tenant time to find another place to live and to vacate this tenancy.
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Order

The tenancy of Chante Alison Roycroft at 45 Puckey Avenue, Kaitaia 0410 is terminated, and possession is granted to Far North Real Estate (2010) Limited as agent for Richard Lyon Sarah, at 11.59pm on Sunday 4 February 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Vokins represented the landlord. I conducted the hearing by phone.
I first heard the application in Kaitaia on 12 January 2024. The parties appeared in person. I adjourned the hearing but allowed the landlord to have the application urgently recalled which led to the hearing today.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour by the tenant or someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour comprises continual barking by the tenant’s dog, and the playing of loud music sometime into the early hours of the morning.
The landlord has received multiple complaints from neighbours. A complaint was made on 12 January 2024 after the last hearing ended with further complaints on 14, 17 and 18 January 2024. The legal requirements
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.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

When I first heard the application, the landlord established grounds to terminate the tenancy because it had issued 3 separate notices that complied with the statutory requirements.
The Tribunal is sometimes reluctant to terminate tenancies for anti-social behaviour especially when it considers that the tenant will stop the behaviour to preserve the tenancy. That is what I considered would happen in this case.
For that reason, I adjourned the hearing based on the tenant’s assurances that she would endeavour to ensure there were no further instances of behaviour that caused alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
I have considered the evidence presented by the parties, both oral and documentary, presented at the first hearing. And I have considered the evidence each party gave today. The tenant said she is prepared to stop the disturbances that affect her neighbours, but not yet, maybe next week.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred at the premises by the tenant or a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, including her son and her brother.
The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required by 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 considering 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.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The Tribunal provided the tenant the opportunity to stop the behaviour that has resulted in the notices of anti-social behaviour. The breaches by the tenant have been on-going despite that. She appears to have made little or no effort to ensure that the anti-social behaviour ceased. Her suggestion today that she might make changes next week is not sufficient for me to decline the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy.
I have granted the landlord possession on Sunday 4 February 2024. That allows the tenant time to find another place to live and to vacate this tenancy.
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4747073 — Harassment at 45 Puckey Avenue, Kaitaia 0410

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4747073 — Harassment at 45 Puckey Avenue, Kaitaia 0410

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