What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4820298 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4820298?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4820298?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4820298?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10386341-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4820298 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4820298?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4820298?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4820298?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10386341-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4820298 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.
The parties agree that if the tenants find alternative accommodation prior to the end of the fixed term, the tenancy can be terminated on reasonable notice without penalty.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord sought termination of the tenancy on the basis of a number of 14-day notices for breaches of the RTA, primarily complaints from the neighbours in relation to noise, arguments and the attendance of Police, together with an incident of a person banging on the tenant’s door at 9:30pm and an incident of someone crawling round under cars in the early hours of the morning. Issues with parking were also raised.
Taken alone, each notice was complied with, in that there were no further breaches within the 14 days allowed to remedy them. However, the landlord relies on the number of notices, taken as a whole, to justify termination of tenancy for breaches of the neighbour’s quiet enjoyment.
The landlord has provided emails from the neighbours, which show that the complaints, with the exception of one, come from the same neighbour, rather than there being a number of people with the same issues. Further, the tenants indicate that the neighbour involved, previously made unwelcome comments to her. While it is not clear that these events are connected, it is interesting that this neighbour is the only one complaining.
Further issues arise when looking at the details of the complaints, and the question of identity.
On one incident the neighbour complained that police attended and the male tenant was removed in handcuffs. However, that incident occurred while the male tenant was in Wellington. The police were called by the female tenant following a person breaking into her home and confronting her while she slept. That person was arrested. It is entirely clear that that person was not at the address with the consent of the tenant, and the police attendance is not a breach of the Act.
The remaining visits by Police were explained as a follow up call in relation to an burglary at a previous address, the notification of the death of a close friend and Police seeking a statement from the tenant on behalf of the Coroner, then an incident of mental distress on the part of the tenant who required hospitalisation.
On a further occasion, the neighbour complained that there was a man banging on the tenant’s door. There is no evidence of this on the tenant’s motion sensor camera. But in any event, this person was not a tenant, and was not there at the tenant’s invitation. Their behaviour, if it occurred, is not the tenant’s responsibility.
On the most recent occasion, the neighbour reports that a person was crawling round under cars in the early hours of the morning, that he was disturbed by a dog barking, and that the male tenant called the dog off. The tenants’ position is that they do not, and never have had a dog, however there are dogs at other units nearby. There is no evidence that the tenants have a dog. This complaint is from the same neighbour who wrongly identified the male tenant as the person who was removed in handcuffs, accordingly, I am not satisfied that he has accurately identified the male tenant as the person he saw.
There is a further allegation of noise, where the tenant allegedly played loud music for 5 hours, ignoring knocks on the door and a note left. There is no evidence that noise control was called or attended. The tenant’s position is that she played music, through a small speaker while her children were swimming during the day. She disputes that the music was loud, or bass driven and that it was for 5 hours. The tenant also noted that another neighbour had commented that the sounds of kids swimming, and kiwi music playing was pleasant.
I consider that none of these incidents, individually or together, warrant the termination of the tenancy.
In relating to the parking complaints, the tenants are allowed to park outside their unit. The complaint arises because they have station wagons, and if they park too far from the garage door at the same time as the occupants of the opposite unit are parked, the gap between the two vehicles is narrow. Having viewed the photographs provided, I can see where this issue arises, however it is the responsibility of both these tenants and the occupants of the unit opposite. Further, this is not an issue which warrants a breach notice or the intervention of the Tribunal. It is the sort of matter that could, and should, be dealt with by a polite request between adults to be mindful of parking.
It is clear from the material provided that the neighbour has taken a dislike to these tenants and has expressed that to the property manager on a number of occasions. These complaints present as judgments on the tenant’s lifestyle and what the neighbour has interpreted as anti-social behaviour, rather than an empathetic or respectful consideration of the true circumstances. The reports of police attendance are the clearest examples of this. Complaints were made to the property manager about Police attendance on the basis that fault lay with the tenants. In fact, the tenant was the victim of a serious crime, and was entitled to seek police assistance. The remaining visits from Police were everyday interactions law abiding citizens have with Police for non-culpable reasons. Rather than make enquiries as to the true situation, the neighbour has inferred nefarious intent and passed judgment on the tenants.
The neighbour did not attend the Tribunal to give evidence in support of his accusations. His evidence is not supported by any corroborating material, and has been proven incorrect on several occasions. I remain sceptical of his accounts. The tenants have responded to each allegation, fully and fairly, and I accept their evidence. I found the female tenant, in particular, to be a compelling witness. She spoke about traumatic incidents in a balanced manner and did not appear to exaggerate them. The property manager was caught in the middle. With the benefit of hindsight, this situation would have been better managed through clear communication, rather than the issuing of breach notices.
The application to terminate the tenancy is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.
The parties agree that if the tenants find alternative accommodation prior to the end of the fixed term, the tenancy can be terminated on reasonable notice without penalty.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord sought termination of the tenancy on the basis of a number of 14-day notices for breaches of the RTA, primarily complaints from the neighbours in relation to noise, arguments and the attendance of Police, together with an incident of a person banging on the tenant’s door at 9:30pm and an incident of someone crawling round under cars in the early hours of the morning. Issues with parking were also raised.
Taken alone, each notice was complied with, in that there were no further breaches within the 14 days allowed to remedy them. However, the landlord relies on the number of notices, taken as a whole, to justify termination of tenancy for breaches of the neighbour’s quiet enjoyment.
The landlord has provided emails from the neighbours, which show that the complaints, with the exception of one, come from the same neighbour, rather than there being a number of people with the same issues. Further, the tenants indicate that the neighbour involved, previously made unwelcome comments to her. While it is not clear that these events are connected, it is interesting that this neighbour is the only one complaining.
Further issues arise when looking at the details of the complaints, and the question of identity.
On one incident the neighbour complained that police attended and the male tenant was removed in handcuffs. However, that incident occurred while the male tenant was in Wellington. The police were called by the female tenant following a person breaking into her home and confronting her while she slept. That person was arrested. It is entirely clear that that person was not at the address with the consent of the tenant, and the police attendance is not a breach of the Act.
The remaining visits by Police were explained as a follow up call in relation to an burglary at a previous address, the notification of the death of a close friend and Police seeking a statement from the tenant on behalf of the Coroner, then an incident of mental distress on the part of the tenant who required hospitalisation.
On a further occasion, the neighbour complained that there was a man banging on the tenant’s door. There is no evidence of this on the tenant’s motion sensor camera. But in any event, this person was not a tenant, and was not there at the tenant’s invitation. Their behaviour, if it occurred, is not the tenant’s responsibility.
On the most recent occasion, the neighbour reports that a person was crawling round under cars in the early hours of the morning, that he was disturbed by a dog barking, and that the male tenant called the dog off. The tenants’ position is that they do not, and never have had a dog, however there are dogs at other units nearby. There is no evidence that the tenants have a dog. This complaint is from the same neighbour who wrongly identified the male tenant as the person who was removed in handcuffs, accordingly, I am not satisfied that he has accurately identified the male tenant as the person he saw.
There is a further allegation of noise, where the tenant allegedly played loud music for 5 hours, ignoring knocks on the door and a note left. There is no evidence that noise control was called or attended. The tenant’s position is that she played music, through a small speaker while her children were swimming during the day. She disputes that the music was loud, or bass driven and that it was for 5 hours. The tenant also noted that another neighbour had commented that the sounds of kids swimming, and kiwi music playing was pleasant.
I consider that none of these incidents, individually or together, warrant the termination of the tenancy.
In relating to the parking complaints, the tenants are allowed to park outside their unit. The complaint arises because they have station wagons, and if they park too far from the garage door at the same time as the occupants of the opposite unit are parked, the gap between the two vehicles is narrow. Having viewed the photographs provided, I can see where this issue arises, however it is the responsibility of both these tenants and the occupants of the unit opposite. Further, this is not an issue which warrants a breach notice or the intervention of the Tribunal. It is the sort of matter that could, and should, be dealt with by a polite request between adults to be mindful of parking.
It is clear from the material provided that the neighbour has taken a dislike to these tenants and has expressed that to the property manager on a number of occasions. These complaints present as judgments on the tenant’s lifestyle and what the neighbour has interpreted as anti-social behaviour, rather than an empathetic or respectful consideration of the true circumstances. The reports of police attendance are the clearest examples of this. Complaints were made to the property manager about Police attendance on the basis that fault lay with the tenants. In fact, the tenant was the victim of a serious crime, and was entitled to seek police assistance. The remaining visits from Police were everyday interactions law abiding citizens have with Police for non-culpable reasons. Rather than make enquiries as to the true situation, the neighbour has inferred nefarious intent and passed judgment on the tenants.
The neighbour did not attend the Tribunal to give evidence in support of his accusations. His evidence is not supported by any corroborating material, and has been proven incorrect on several occasions. I remain sceptical of his accounts. The tenants have responded to each allegation, fully and fairly, and I accept their evidence. I found the female tenant, in particular, to be a compelling witness. She spoke about traumatic incidents in a balanced manner and did not appear to exaggerate them. The property manager was caught in the middle. With the benefit of hindsight, this situation would have been better managed through clear communication, rather than the issuing of breach notices.
The application to terminate the tenancy is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4820298 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4820298 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions