What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4822219 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4822219?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4822219?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4822219?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10138184-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4822219 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4822219?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4822219?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4822219?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10138184-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

62 Stuart Crescent, Masterton, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4822219 — Harassment

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
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 as follows: a. The first notice was served on 29 January 2024. On this occasion the tenant and her partner had been arguing. The partner left the premises and sometime later entered the neighbour’s property and locked himself in the neighbour’s washhouse. The police attended. When the landlord arrived at work, he was phoned by a neighbour who described what had happened. b. The second notice was served on 22 February 2024. On this occasion the tenant and her partner had been arguing loudly. There was lots of shouting and dogs barking from approximately 9.15 pm until 10.40 pm. The police attended. The landlord was informed of the disturbance by a neighbour of the tenant. c. The third notice was served on 28 February 2024. Between 7.30 am and
00 am there had been lots of shouting and arguing. Police attended. The landlord was informed of the incident by a neighbour.
In response the tenant had several points to make. Regarding the first incident she said she knew nothing of it until she was informed about it by the landlord. She said she and her partner had an argument the night before and he left her property at about midnight. The allegation of him entering the washhouse happened at 7.00 am the next morning.
The tenant accepted the second incident but said the timeframe was shorter than alleged.
The tenant stated that the third incident didn’t involve a domestic argument but involved shouting as a result of her partner and children playing computer games, her screaming in response to being frightened by a spider and then shouting to try and get some help.
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 second and third incidents to be instances of anti-social behaviour, in that they involved considerable noise, disturbance and alarm to the neighbourhood sufficient to warrant a neighbour or neighbours calling the police.
I am not persuaded the first instance amounts to anti-social behaviour for the following reasons: a. The anti-social behaviour did not occur “by the tenant or a person in the premises”, as is required by the Act. The tenant’s partner left the tenant’s premises approximately 7 hours before entering the neighbour’s property. b. The 7 hours between the partner leaving the property and entering the neighbour’s property is sufficient that it cannot be said to be one continuing act. To put it another way, the tenant cannot be held liable (to the extent that it may affect their tenancy) for the conduct in the neighbourhood of every person who has set foot on their property during the tenancy.
Because there are only two instances of anti-social behaviour within a 90-day period the case is not proved.
Having decided the first instance does not amount to anti-social behaviour as defined by the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, there are still two notices for anti-social behaviour that are in play, the first dating from 22 February 2024. The 90-day period starting from this notice will not expire until 22 May 2024. That is a considerable amount of time.
The landlord has made it clear that he is “not in the business of terminating tenancies” and he wishes to avoid this outcome if possible.
The tenant has explained that the disturbances described above relate to a difficult period that she believes has now passed.
The neighbours have clearly been acting from a position of concern for the tenant when they have called the police.
I draw attention to this because it is in the interests of all parties that the tenancy returns to an even and a more peaceful footing going forward, and I believe all parties are hopeful that this is what will happen.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

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 as follows: a. The first notice was served on 29 January 2024. On this occasion the tenant and her partner had been arguing. The partner left the premises and sometime later entered the neighbour’s property and locked himself in the neighbour’s washhouse. The police attended. When the landlord arrived at work, he was phoned by a neighbour who described what had happened. b. The second notice was served on 22 February 2024. On this occasion the tenant and her partner had been arguing loudly. There was lots of shouting and dogs barking from approximately 9.15 pm until 10.40 pm. The police attended. The landlord was informed of the disturbance by a neighbour of the tenant. c. The third notice was served on 28 February 2024. Between 7.30 am and

00 am there had been lots of shouting and arguing. Police attended. The landlord was informed of the incident by a neighbour.

In response the tenant had several points to make. Regarding the first incident she said she knew nothing of it until she was informed about it by the landlord. She said she and her partner had an argument the night before and he left her property at about midnight. The allegation of him entering the washhouse happened at 7.00 am the next morning.

The tenant accepted the second incident but said the timeframe was shorter than alleged.

The tenant stated that the third incident didn’t involve a domestic argument but involved shouting as a result of her partner and children playing computer games, her screaming in response to being frightened by a spider and then shouting to try and get some help.

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 second and third incidents to be instances of anti-social behaviour, in that they involved considerable noise, disturbance and alarm to the neighbourhood sufficient to warrant a neighbour or neighbours calling the police.

I am not persuaded the first instance amounts to anti-social behaviour for the following reasons: a. The anti-social behaviour did not occur “by the tenant or a person in the premises”, as is required by the Act. The tenant’s partner left the tenant’s premises approximately 7 hours before entering the neighbour’s property. b. The 7 hours between the partner leaving the property and entering the neighbour’s property is sufficient that it cannot be said to be one continuing act. To put it another way, the tenant cannot be held liable (to the extent that it may affect their tenancy) for the conduct in the neighbourhood of every person who has set foot on their property during the tenancy.

Because there are only two instances of anti-social behaviour within a 90-day period the case is not proved.

Having decided the first instance does not amount to anti-social behaviour as defined by the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, there are still two notices for anti-social behaviour that are in play, the first dating from 22 February 2024. The 90-day period starting from this notice will not expire until 22 May 2024. That is a considerable amount of time.

The landlord has made it clear that he is “not in the business of terminating tenancies” and he wishes to avoid this outcome if possible.

The tenant has explained that the disturbances described above relate to a difficult period that she believes has now passed.

The neighbours have clearly been acting from a position of concern for the tenant when they have called the police.

I draw attention to this because it is in the interests of all parties that the tenancy returns to an even and a more peaceful footing going forward, and I believe all parties are hopeful that this is what will happen.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4822219 — Harassment at 62 Stuart Crescent, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4822219 — Harassment at 62 Stuart Crescent, Masterton, Masterton 5810

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