What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4777545 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 4777545?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4777545?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4777545?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9931894-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4777545 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 4777545?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4777545?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4777545?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9931894-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4777545 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on three grounds: (a) Under s56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) – failure to pay rent; and (b) Under s55A RTA – termination for antisocial behaviour; and (c) Under s55(c)(v) – assaulting a neighbour.
I shall take each of the grounds in turn. Breach of s56
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 tenants have breached their obligations by failing to pay rent as and when it fell due.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 10 January 2024 and the tenants did not remedy the breach within the required period.
At today’s hearing it became apparent that there has been some confusion regarding $50.00 per week payments by the tenants for water, overpayment of water, and how much of the $50.00 payments ought to be directed to rent arrears.
I am refusing to terminate the tenancy on this ground because it is clear that the tenants are motivated to pay, and have been paying, an amount per week to address these arrears. I accept that they have tried to communicate with the property manager to clarify the situation but to date that clarification has not been forthcoming.
At today’s hearing the parties undertook to communicate regarding the interplay between water payments and rent arrears.
I am not making an order requiring the tenants to pay rent arrears which currently stand at $390.00 because I am satisfied that there is already an arrangement in place to pay these arrears and that the tenants are abiding by that arrangement. Anti-social behaviour
A landlord under a periodic tenancy may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the ground of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
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.
The applicant is required to establish their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. In this case that means that the landlord is required to establish that more likely than not the anti-social behaviour occurred on three separate occasions and that the tenants were given three separate notices regarding this behaviour.
I am dismissing this ground for termination because: (a)the landlord has supplied the tenants with only two notices regarding anti-social behaviour rather than three; and (b)While the applicant states that the breach notice provided to the tenants relating to noise control issues could amount to a notice regarding anti- social behaviour and therefore act as a third notice for anti-social behaviour, the noise control notice does not contain the elements required for a notice regarding anti-social behaviour – for example, the requirement to state how many other such notices had been given and the requirement to advise the tenant of their right to make an application to the Tribunal. Further to this the noise control reports were not available to the Tribunal to consider; and (c)the tenants disputed that the anti-social behaviour complained of occurred. In a situation such as this where the respondents dispute the allegations made, the applicant is required to show some kind of objective evidence to prove their claim to the required standard. Emails from the neighbours do not amount to objective evidence. Although I am aware that Police Reports are in existence I am not aware of their contents. For these reasons I find that the landlord has not been able to show that more likely than not the anti-social behaviour occurred. Breach of s55(c)(v)
Section55(c)(v) provides that the Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or threatened to assault, any neighbour of the premises.
Again, as the applicant, the landlord is required to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities – that is, that more likely than not the tenant assaulted or threatened to assault, a neighbour.
The tenants disputed the version of events provided by the neighbour in an email.
As referred to earlier, some kind of objective evidence is required to prove a claim in a situation such as this where the respondents dispute the allegation.
Again, no objective evidence has been provided. Again, a Police Report apparently documents the allegation but that report was not available to the Tribunal. Nor were there any witnesses provided to support the applicant’s claim.
For these reasons I find that the landlord has not been able to prove their claim to the required standard. Suppression of the tenants’ names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1)The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the 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. (2)An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3)If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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 tenants were successful in their defence to this claim and after discussing suppression at today’s hearing, I am ordering suppression of their names pursuant to s95A(3). C ter Haar 08 February 2024

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on three grounds: (a) Under s56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) – failure to pay rent; and (b) Under s55A RTA – termination for antisocial behaviour; and (c) Under s55(c)(v) – assaulting a neighbour.
I shall take each of the grounds in turn. Breach of s56
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 tenants have breached their obligations by failing to pay rent as and when it fell due.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 10 January 2024 and the tenants did not remedy the breach within the required period.
At today’s hearing it became apparent that there has been some confusion regarding $50.00 per week payments by the tenants for water, overpayment of water, and how much of the $50.00 payments ought to be directed to rent arrears.
I am refusing to terminate the tenancy on this ground because it is clear that the tenants are motivated to pay, and have been paying, an amount per week to address these arrears. I accept that they have tried to communicate with the property manager to clarify the situation but to date that clarification has not been forthcoming.
At today’s hearing the parties undertook to communicate regarding the interplay between water payments and rent arrears.
I am not making an order requiring the tenants to pay rent arrears which currently stand at $390.00 because I am satisfied that there is already an arrangement in place to pay these arrears and that the tenants are abiding by that arrangement. Anti-social behaviour
A landlord under a periodic tenancy may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the ground of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
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.
The applicant is required to establish their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. In this case that means that the landlord is required to establish that more likely than not the anti-social behaviour occurred on three separate occasions and that the tenants were given three separate notices regarding this behaviour.
I am dismissing this ground for termination because: (a)the landlord has supplied the tenants with only two notices regarding anti-social behaviour rather than three; and (b)While the applicant states that the breach notice provided to the tenants relating to noise control issues could amount to a notice regarding anti- social behaviour and therefore act as a third notice for anti-social behaviour, the noise control notice does not contain the elements required for a notice regarding anti-social behaviour – for example, the requirement to state how many other such notices had been given and the requirement to advise the tenant of their right to make an application to the Tribunal. Further to this the noise control reports were not available to the Tribunal to consider; and (c)the tenants disputed that the anti-social behaviour complained of occurred. In a situation such as this where the respondents dispute the allegations made, the applicant is required to show some kind of objective evidence to prove their claim to the required standard. Emails from the neighbours do not amount to objective evidence. Although I am aware that Police Reports are in existence I am not aware of their contents. For these reasons I find that the landlord has not been able to show that more likely than not the anti-social behaviour occurred. Breach of s55(c)(v)
Section55(c)(v) provides that the Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or threatened to assault, any neighbour of the premises.
Again, as the applicant, the landlord is required to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities – that is, that more likely than not the tenant assaulted or threatened to assault, a neighbour.
The tenants disputed the version of events provided by the neighbour in an email.
As referred to earlier, some kind of objective evidence is required to prove a claim in a situation such as this where the respondents dispute the allegation.
Again, no objective evidence has been provided. Again, a Police Report apparently documents the allegation but that report was not available to the Tribunal. Nor were there any witnesses provided to support the applicant’s claim.
For these reasons I find that the landlord has not been able to prove their claim to the required standard. Suppression of the tenants’ names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1)The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the 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. (2)An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3)If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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 tenants were successful in their defence to this claim and after discussing suppression at today’s hearing, I am ordering suppression of their names pursuant to s95A(3). C ter Haar 08 February 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4777545 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4777545 — Rent arrears

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