What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4829417 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 4829417?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4829417?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4829417?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10206414-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4829417 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 4829417?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4829417?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4829417?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10206414-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4829417 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 4pm on Wednesday 24 April 2024.

Reasons

The applicant attended the hearing. There was no appearance for 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 harassment and verbal abuse causing alarm and distress to staff and residents of the apartment complex that is more than minor resulting in police attendance on two of the occasions.
The landlord is a social housing provider and explained that the tenant has complex needs. The tenant is living in an apartment complex that primarily houses students. The tenant believed that someone had entered his premises and went to reception seeking cctv footage on three separate occasions. He became abusive to the staff and other residents were present when this occurred.
The property manager provided cctv footage of the first incident that took place on 15 February 2024. The police were called and spoke to the tenant. The property manager was called and personally attended the second incident when again the police attended and stated that the tenant was elevated and appeared to be in a “manic state”.
The property manager arranged for security to be present at the apartment complex due to concerns that this building is primarily student accommodation.
A third incident took place, and the property manager provided a report from the security guard stating that the tenant raised his voice toward reception and was asked to leave by security.
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 landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The landlord wishes to allow time for the tenant’s support workers to seek to assist the tenant with moving and therefore the termination will take effect from Wednesday 26 April 2024.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has applied for suppression and has explained the sensitive nature of this matter. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression of all parties’ identifying details.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 4pm on Wednesday 24 April 2024.

Reasons

The applicant attended the hearing. There was no appearance for 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 harassment and verbal abuse causing alarm and distress to staff and residents of the apartment complex that is more than minor resulting in police attendance on two of the occasions.
The landlord is a social housing provider and explained that the tenant has complex needs. The tenant is living in an apartment complex that primarily houses students. The tenant believed that someone had entered his premises and went to reception seeking cctv footage on three separate occasions. He became abusive to the staff and other residents were present when this occurred.
The property manager provided cctv footage of the first incident that took place on 15 February 2024. The police were called and spoke to the tenant. The property manager was called and personally attended the second incident when again the police attended and stated that the tenant was elevated and appeared to be in a “manic state”.
The property manager arranged for security to be present at the apartment complex due to concerns that this building is primarily student accommodation.
A third incident took place, and the property manager provided a report from the security guard stating that the tenant raised his voice toward reception and was asked to leave by security.
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 landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The landlord wishes to allow time for the tenant’s support workers to seek to assist the tenant with moving and therefore the termination will take effect from Wednesday 26 April 2024.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has applied for suppression and has explained the sensitive nature of this matter. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression of all parties’ identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4829417 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4829417 — 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