What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4813597 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4813597?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4813597?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4813597?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10311388-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4813597 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4813597?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4813597?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4813597?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10311388-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4813597 — Harassment

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour by the tenant (under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”)).
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 (section 55A(2)(a)); and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice (section 55A(2)(b))— 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 (section 55A(2)(c)).
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 landlord states that the tenant has displayed offensive signs outside her property and has been yelling at her neighbours.
The landlord has issued three notices in the 90 days prior to this application as follows: a. Notice dated 8 January 2024: “It has been reported to us that there has been anti-social behaviour at your property on 6 January 2024. It is alleged signs outside your property are still present. Please remove these signs as soon as possible”; b. Notice dated 30 January 2024: “It has been reported to us that there has been anti-social behaviour at your property on Monday 29 January 2024 at approximately 10.00am. Anti-social behaviour means harassment or any other act or omissions (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor”. ... “It has been reported that you were verbally abusive yelling profanities at your neighbour and did not stop yelling when asked to”; and c. Notice dated 12 February 2024: “It has been reported to us that there has been anti-social behaviour at your property on Thursday 08 February 2024 at approximately midday. Anti-social behaviour means harassment, or any other act or omissions (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor” ... “It has been reported that you were verbally abusive yelling profanities at your neighbour and did not stop yelling when asked to”.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has complied with the requirements in section 55A(2) of the Act. None of the notices advise the tenant of her right to challenge the notices as required by section 55A(b)(iv). I am also doubtful that the first notice clearly describes the specific behaviour that the landlord considered to be anti-social, as required under section 55A(b)(i).
The requirements of section 55A(2) are strict (see for example Airdale Property Trust v Lawson [2021] NZTT Auckland 4301453). This is unsurprising given the potential consequences for the tenant.
During the hearing I referred the landlord to the standard form section 55A(2) notice that is available for download on Tenancy Services’ website. This form is specifically drafted to assist landlords serving notices for anti-social behaviour to comply with the Act.
I have not found the landlord’s claim proven as the landlord has not complied with the strict requirements of section 55A(2) of the Act. The tenant should be aware however that if there are further instances of anti-social behaviour, the landlord is likely to re-apply for an order for termination. Should the landlord make a further application under section 55A, they should ensure that notices comply with section 55A(2) and that the anti-social behaviour is proved to the civil standard (see Oaks Property Management Limited v Tenant [2022] NZTT 4345545).
As the landlord’s claim has been dismissed I have not refunded the filing fee.
In the circumstances I have exercised my discretion to suppress both the landlord and tenant’s names and the tenancy address. It appears that there some complex ongoing issues in this tenancy and I am of the view that suppression is appropriate, particularly if a further application is likely to be filed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour by the tenant (under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”)).
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 (section 55A(2)(a)); and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice (section 55A(2)(b))— 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 (section 55A(2)(c)).
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 landlord states that the tenant has displayed offensive signs outside her property and has been yelling at her neighbours.
The landlord has issued three notices in the 90 days prior to this application as follows: a. Notice dated 8 January 2024: “It has been reported to us that there has been anti-social behaviour at your property on 6 January 2024. It is alleged signs outside your property are still present. Please remove these signs as soon as possible”; b. Notice dated 30 January 2024: “It has been reported to us that there has been anti-social behaviour at your property on Monday 29 January 2024 at approximately 10.00am. Anti-social behaviour means harassment or any other act or omissions (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor”. ... “It has been reported that you were verbally abusive yelling profanities at your neighbour and did not stop yelling when asked to”; and c. Notice dated 12 February 2024: “It has been reported to us that there has been anti-social behaviour at your property on Thursday 08 February 2024 at approximately midday. Anti-social behaviour means harassment, or any other act or omissions (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor” ... “It has been reported that you were verbally abusive yelling profanities at your neighbour and did not stop yelling when asked to”.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has complied with the requirements in section 55A(2) of the Act. None of the notices advise the tenant of her right to challenge the notices as required by section 55A(b)(iv). I am also doubtful that the first notice clearly describes the specific behaviour that the landlord considered to be anti-social, as required under section 55A(b)(i).
The requirements of section 55A(2) are strict (see for example Airdale Property Trust v Lawson [2021] NZTT Auckland 4301453). This is unsurprising given the potential consequences for the tenant.
During the hearing I referred the landlord to the standard form section 55A(2) notice that is available for download on Tenancy Services’ website. This form is specifically drafted to assist landlords serving notices for anti-social behaviour to comply with the Act.
I have not found the landlord’s claim proven as the landlord has not complied with the strict requirements of section 55A(2) of the Act. The tenant should be aware however that if there are further instances of anti-social behaviour, the landlord is likely to re-apply for an order for termination. Should the landlord make a further application under section 55A, they should ensure that notices comply with section 55A(2) and that the anti-social behaviour is proved to the civil standard (see Oaks Property Management Limited v Tenant [2022] NZTT 4345545).
As the landlord’s claim has been dismissed I have not refunded the filing fee.
In the circumstances I have exercised my discretion to suppress both the landlord and tenant’s names and the tenancy address. It appears that there some complex ongoing issues in this tenancy and I am of the view that suppression is appropriate, particularly if a further application is likely to be filed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4813597 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4813597 — 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