What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4797157 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4797157?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4797157?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4797157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10006278-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4797157 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4797157?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4797157?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4797157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10006278-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4797157 — 14-day notice

Order

The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing and both parties had witnesses.
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 includes: • a physical fight with her adult daughter • disruptive behaviour including drinking and being loud outside the apartments at 2am • yelling and disturbing neighbours at 2.30 am and 4.50 am.
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 find the landlord has properly served all the anti social notices and they comply with the requirements set out in section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Should the tenancy end?

As to the first notice the landlord had a witness who saw the fight and the disruption in the 19 apartment complex. The tenant agreed with the evidence and said she has since sorted out the issues with her daughter. I note that there do not seem to be any further complaints relating to this daughter.
As to the second and third notices, these rely on emails provided to the property manager by other tenants in the complex, and also on a record of a phone call. These tenants, living in different apartments, did not want to give evidence at the hearing. One of the property managers said she also sees a lot of people coming and going from the tenant’s apartment.
The tenant did not agree with the statements. She said that she does not have parties in her apartment. She said there may have been people outside the apartments, but she did not invite them. She said she does not yell in her apartment at night. She said one of the tenants who has complained also behaves loudly and antisocially, but she just ignores her. The tenant said she only has family in her apartment, and she does not let them have parties. She said the walls are thin and it is not unusual to hear people walking past the apartments talking when you are inside.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. This means the landlord must have the better evidence. The tenant has provided a reasonable response to the written complaints. I find I am not more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence. This means the application to end the tenancy is dismissed. Other matters
I note the landlord is also concerned about the tenant having a dog in her apartment. I could not consider whether this is a breach of the tenancy agreement at the hearing because the landlord has not issued 14 day notices about the dog.
The landlord made an application for suppression. This is not allowed because the landlord is not the most successful party and because there is public interest in decisions made by public housing providers. See section 95A RTA.
I have used my discretion and allowed suppression for the tenant because no orders have been made against her.

Order

The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing and both parties had witnesses.
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 includes: • a physical fight with her adult daughter • disruptive behaviour including drinking and being loud outside the apartments at 2am • yelling and disturbing neighbours at 2.30 am and 4.50 am.
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 find the landlord has properly served all the anti social notices and they comply with the requirements set out in section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Should the tenancy end?

As to the first notice the landlord had a witness who saw the fight and the disruption in the 19 apartment complex. The tenant agreed with the evidence and said she has since sorted out the issues with her daughter. I note that there do not seem to be any further complaints relating to this daughter.
As to the second and third notices, these rely on emails provided to the property manager by other tenants in the complex, and also on a record of a phone call. These tenants, living in different apartments, did not want to give evidence at the hearing. One of the property managers said she also sees a lot of people coming and going from the tenant’s apartment.
The tenant did not agree with the statements. She said that she does not have parties in her apartment. She said there may have been people outside the apartments, but she did not invite them. She said she does not yell in her apartment at night. She said one of the tenants who has complained also behaves loudly and antisocially, but she just ignores her. The tenant said she only has family in her apartment, and she does not let them have parties. She said the walls are thin and it is not unusual to hear people walking past the apartments talking when you are inside.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. This means the landlord must have the better evidence. The tenant has provided a reasonable response to the written complaints. I find I am not more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence. This means the application to end the tenancy is dismissed. Other matters
I note the landlord is also concerned about the tenant having a dog in her apartment. I could not consider whether this is a breach of the tenancy agreement at the hearing because the landlord has not issued 14 day notices about the dog.
The landlord made an application for suppression. This is not allowed because the landlord is not the most successful party and because there is public interest in decisions made by public housing providers. See section 95A RTA.
I have used my discretion and allowed suppression for the tenant because no orders have been made against her.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4797157 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4797157 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy end?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy end?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions