What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4784478 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 4784478?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4784478?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4784478?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10228878-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4784478 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 4784478?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4784478?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4784478?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10228878-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4784478 — Harassment

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
In considering the parties’ claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the parties must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I consider each of their claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding a claim, I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their case. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence. The tenant’s claim
The tenant’s application was for the termination of two of the neighbouring tenancies at the same address as the property which he is renting.
The tenant’s application was based on a serious incident which occurred on the morning of either 19 or 20 December 2023. The tenant claimed that he was the victim of verbal abuse and the subject of physical threats of a very serious nature.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to terminate a tenancy on the application of another tenant in the same complex. Only a landlord can bring such an application. The appropriate course of action was for the tenant to bring the incident to the attention of the landlord so that it can take appropriate action.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant the remedy the tenant is seeking. In other words, there is no power granted to the Tribunal in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) to terminate the tenancy of another tenant on the application of a neighbouring tenant. The landlord’s claim
The landlord has made an application to terminate the tenant’s tenancy under section 55A RTA.
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 tenant denied receiving any of the notices, nor any notification that the landlord’s application would be considered at the hearing.
The landlord gave evidence that the first two notices were delivered by hand to the property. The third notice was emailed to an email address given to her by the tenant and which was confirmed at the hearing by the tenant.
The Court’s records show that the landlord’s application and supporting documentation were emailed to the tenant at the email address he confirmed was his.
I am satisfied that the tenant was served with the landlord’s notices and the landlord’s application.
The landlord’s notices were as follows: a. First notice: 20 December 2023. This notice claimed that the tenant “has disturbed the peace and quiet enjoyment of the neighbours by banging on the walls and yelling and screaming on 20 December 2023 at 7 am. The police were called to the property.” b. Second notice: 30 January 2024. This notice claimed that the tenant “disturbed the peace and quiet enjoyment of the neighbours on 13 January 2024 by yelling at one of the neighbours from his flat. Noise control was also called. Verbal abuse was also yelled from the kitchen window at the district nurse who was visiting Flat 2 on 25 January 2024.” c. Third notice: 7 March 2024. This notice claimed that “On Tuesday 6 February 2024 at around 1 pm while walking down the road [the tenant] yelled and verbally abused the owner of [address] while he was on his roof doing repair work. [The tenant] was aggressive in his manor [sic] demanding to know what the owner was doing on his roof.”
The landlord’s claims were supported by written statements from the affected parties. There was no supporting evidence from either the police or the noise complaint authority.
The incident that gave rise to the first notice is the same incident that was the subject of the tenant’s application. The tenant acknowledged that the police attended this incident but neither arrested any person nor took any further action. The tenant denies the allegations made against him in all three notices. He did not make an application to the Tribunal to challenge the notices, presumably because he claims he did not receive them.
The landlord acknowledged that the relationship between the tenant and the tenants of two other flats in the complex has deteriorated to the point where the landlord was obliged to bring this application. The landlord advised that one of the tenants involved has since vacated and there have not been further significant disturbances. Discussion and decision
It is a serious matter for the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy. As noted above, the landlord must prove their claim on the balance of probabilities, that is, that it is more likely than not.
In the face of the tenant’s denial of the substance of the most serious charges and without the presence of the complainants in person for cross-examination, this is essentially a situation of one party’s word against another: each party is claiming that the other “started it”. Conflicts between neighbours have a strong tendency to escalate and it can become very difficult or impossible to determine who was at fault. There are situations that have come before the Tribunal where a group of tenants have ganged up on another tenant to have them evicted under section 55A RTA as a means of punishment for some real or imagined transgression not necessarily related to the tenancy.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is not possible to determine who is the party at fault and it is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the grounds have been made out under section 55A RTA that the behaviour occurred or that it occurred in such a way as to amount to harassment, or that another party did not instigate these incidents as claimed by the tenant.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
However, the tenant needs to be aware that behaviour of the kind described in the notices, supported by cogent evidence, can be grounds for the termination of a tenancy.
Similarly, if the tenant believes that his quiet enjoyment is being breached or that he is suffering harassment from a neighbouring tenant, then he needs to notify his landlord. However, the tenant needs to be aware of the need for compelling evidence in support of such accusations.
As neither party has succeeded in their application, it is appropriate that both parties be granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4784478 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4784478 — Harassment

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