What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4749669 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for termination for antisocial behaviour is

How much money was awarded in case 4749669?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4749669?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4749669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9742399-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4749669 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for termination for antisocial behaviour is

How much money was awarded in case 4749669?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4749669?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4749669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9742399-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

100C Tirau Street, Putaruru, Putaruru 3411 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4749669 — Harassment

Order

The landlord’s application for termination for antisocial behaviour is dismissed.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The Applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, being on the balance of probabilities. Another way to say this is, is it more likely than not that the events have occurred.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is, a) arguing resulting in Police attending the premises, b) fighting resulting in Police attending the premises, and c) trespassing on the neighbour’s property.
The Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that 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 that on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice that complies with the strict requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986,RTA. See section 55A, RTA.
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.
I have determined that the landlord has not satisfied me that it was more likely than not that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant, or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission.
The notices were provided and complied with the RTA, however there was only one page of evidence supplied being a message written by a neighbour about Police, traffic, and trespassing. No dates or times were given.
The property manager said that she had applied for Police reports but had not obtained them and there was a video recording but this was not produced at the hearing.
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.
A person who was there can answer questions about what they saw or heard, and the Adjudicator can make an assessment on the witness’s credibility.
The Tribunal requires evidence of specific behaviour, when where and by whom. A landlord has the burden to prove that these events occurred and is required to bring documentary evidence, as well as statements in support, or witnesses who can be questioned. A landlord who fails to establish the claim to the civil law standard will not be able to prove their claim.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord was not successful in this claim, and, in the interest of the tenant, I order that the tenants name or identifying particulars not be published.

Order

The landlord’s application for termination for antisocial behaviour is dismissed.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The Applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, being on the balance of probabilities. Another way to say this is, is it more likely than not that the events have occurred.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is, a) arguing resulting in Police attending the premises, b) fighting resulting in Police attending the premises, and c) trespassing on the neighbour’s property.
The Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that 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 that on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice that complies with the strict requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986,RTA. See section 55A, RTA.
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.
I have determined that the landlord has not satisfied me that it was more likely than not that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant, or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission.
The notices were provided and complied with the RTA, however there was only one page of evidence supplied being a message written by a neighbour about Police, traffic, and trespassing. No dates or times were given.
The property manager said that she had applied for Police reports but had not obtained them and there was a video recording but this was not produced at the hearing.
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.
A person who was there can answer questions about what they saw or heard, and the Adjudicator can make an assessment on the witness’s credibility.
The Tribunal requires evidence of specific behaviour, when where and by whom. A landlord has the burden to prove that these events occurred and is required to bring documentary evidence, as well as statements in support, or witnesses who can be questioned. A landlord who fails to establish the claim to the civil law standard will not be able to prove their claim.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord was not successful in this claim, and, in the interest of the tenant, I order that the tenants name or identifying particulars not be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4749669 — Harassment at 100C Tirau Street, Putaruru, Putaruru 3411

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4749669 — Harassment at 100C Tirau Street, Putaruru, Putaruru 3411

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