What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4788638 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for termination for anti-social behaviour is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4788638?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4788638?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4788638?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10006772-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4788638 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for termination for anti-social behaviour is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4788638?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4788638?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4788638?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10006772-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 401, 691E Mount Albert Road, Royal Oak, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4788638 — Harassment

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Boulne and Ms Williams as agent for the landlords. Mr Fenton the tenant.

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 landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is loud music and bad behaviour from visitors towards other tenants.

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.

I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.

I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The tenant admits playing loud music during the holidays and apologises for this. The agent confirms the loud music has stopped.

The tenant also says he cannot control everyone coming to see him or their behaviour but is warned about the impact of other peoples’ behaviour on his tenancy. He particularly apologises for his cousin and another person whom he says he was helping.

The landlord did not serve notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The second, third and fourth notices were all issued the same day, 23 January 2024 for behaviour occurring on 12, 13 and 22 January 2024. The tenant was not given an opportunity to address the behaviour fairly. He is now put on notice about that type of behaviour re-occurring.

In these circumstances, it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Boulne and Ms Williams as agent for the landlords. Mr Fenton the tenant.

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is loud music and bad behaviour from visitors towards other tenants.

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 taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.

The landlord did not serve notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In these circumstances, it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4788638 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 401, 691E Mount Albert Road, Royal Oak,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4788638 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 401, 691E Mount Albert Road, Royal Oak,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions