What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4852840 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4852840?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4852840?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4852840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10442067-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4852840 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4852840?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4852840?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4852840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10442067-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4852840 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 premises consist if an apartment within an apartment building complex. The tenant resides there with his 5-year-old daughter.
The landlord says that the tenant has breached his obligations by engaging in anti-social behaviour not capable of remedy.
The landlord issued a 14-day notice on 31 January 2024 pursuant to section 56 Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”). The behaviour complained of on this occasion involved exercising loudly and banging of doors. The tenant says that he had a treadmill in his apartment. The tenant says that the treadmill no longer works.
There was also an undated section 55A(2) anti-social behaviour notice served on the tenant in respect of harassment of a neighbour on 4 February 2024.
The tenant says that most of this is not true. The only aspect the tenant accepts is that of the treadmill. The tenant tried to resolve his differences with the neighbour but was unsuccessful.
The landlord also served an undated 14 day ‘cease and desist’ notice pursuant to section 56 RTA concerning the use of an air gun by the tenant on 4 April 2024.
The landlord filed written submissions in support of their application.
The tenant provided a comprehensive written explanation in response to the various allegations. The tenant also attended the hearing. Amongst other things, he says that the gun was a small airsoft gun which he was using inside his apartment. He had placed a cardboard box at the ranch slider and was firing the airsoft ‘bullets’ into the box. The tenant accepted during the hearing that the use of this, especially in an apartment environment, was foolish.
During the hearing the landlord confirmed that there have been no issues since 4 April 2024.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the owner wants the tenant removed. I have also sighted and carefully considered a statement by an unnamed neighbour dated 17 May 2024, along with a statement from the apartment owner dated 24 May 2024.
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.
The landlord has not issued three 14-day notices pursuant to s55A of the Residential Tenancies Act.
I have determined that the landlord has not 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 not served section 55A notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Should the tenancy be terminated for a breach capable of remedy pursuant to section 56RTA?
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord claims that the tenant has breached their obligations by exercising loudly, banging doors and using an air gun.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 4 April 2024 in respect of the airsoft gun. Because there have been no ongoing issues since 4 April 2024 I am satisfied that the tenant has remedied the breach within the required period.
I also note an absence of police involvement in the various complaints as set out by the unnamed neighbour. I would have thought that police involvement would have been the first step considering some of the allegations made. No evidence of this has been provided by the landlord in support of his application.
Accordingly, based on the evidence filed it is my view that the tenant’s behaviour, whilst frustrating and inconsiderate, does not amount to anti-social behaviour. The landlord has also not served the required number of anti-social behaviour notices in respect of this. I am also satisfied that the tenant had remedied the breach set out in the landlord’s section 56 notice of 4 April 2024. It is my view that terminating the tenancy would be a disproportionate response, especially having regard to the tenant’s 5-year-old daughter.
The tenant should nevertheless take this as a warning in respect of future behaviour. The tenant must understand that apartment living requires common sense and respect for neighbours. The use of an airsoft gun is certainly foolish in such close confines of other apartments. The landlord will be quite within their rights to file a new application with the Tribunal in the event of future complaints.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order during the hearing. Although the landlord is not entitled to name suppression as the application is unsuccessful I order name suppression in line with the same order for the tenant– see section 95A RTA.
The tenant applied for non-publication of his name and identifying details. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case on this occasion. The landlord does not oppose this.
Because the application is unsuccessful I make no order reimbursing the filing fee.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 premises consist if an apartment within an apartment building complex. The tenant resides there with his 5-year-old daughter.
The landlord says that the tenant has breached his obligations by engaging in anti-social behaviour not capable of remedy.
The landlord issued a 14-day notice on 31 January 2024 pursuant to section 56 Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”). The behaviour complained of on this occasion involved exercising loudly and banging of doors. The tenant says that he had a treadmill in his apartment. The tenant says that the treadmill no longer works.
There was also an undated section 55A(2) anti-social behaviour notice served on the tenant in respect of harassment of a neighbour on 4 February 2024.
The tenant says that most of this is not true. The only aspect the tenant accepts is that of the treadmill. The tenant tried to resolve his differences with the neighbour but was unsuccessful.
The landlord also served an undated 14 day ‘cease and desist’ notice pursuant to section 56 RTA concerning the use of an air gun by the tenant on 4 April 2024.
The landlord filed written submissions in support of their application.
The tenant provided a comprehensive written explanation in response to the various allegations. The tenant also attended the hearing. Amongst other things, he says that the gun was a small airsoft gun which he was using inside his apartment. He had placed a cardboard box at the ranch slider and was firing the airsoft ‘bullets’ into the box. The tenant accepted during the hearing that the use of this, especially in an apartment environment, was foolish.
During the hearing the landlord confirmed that there have been no issues since 4 April 2024.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the owner wants the tenant removed. I have also sighted and carefully considered a statement by an unnamed neighbour dated 17 May 2024, along with a statement from the apartment owner dated 24 May 2024.
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.
The landlord has not issued three 14-day notices pursuant to s55A of the Residential Tenancies Act.
I have determined that the landlord has not 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 not served section 55A notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Should the tenancy be terminated for a breach capable of remedy pursuant to section 56RTA?
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord claims that the tenant has breached their obligations by exercising loudly, banging doors and using an air gun.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 4 April 2024 in respect of the airsoft gun. Because there have been no ongoing issues since 4 April 2024 I am satisfied that the tenant has remedied the breach within the required period.
I also note an absence of police involvement in the various complaints as set out by the unnamed neighbour. I would have thought that police involvement would have been the first step considering some of the allegations made. No evidence of this has been provided by the landlord in support of his application.
Accordingly, based on the evidence filed it is my view that the tenant’s behaviour, whilst frustrating and inconsiderate, does not amount to anti-social behaviour. The landlord has also not served the required number of anti-social behaviour notices in respect of this. I am also satisfied that the tenant had remedied the breach set out in the landlord’s section 56 notice of 4 April 2024. It is my view that terminating the tenancy would be a disproportionate response, especially having regard to the tenant’s 5-year-old daughter.
The tenant should nevertheless take this as a warning in respect of future behaviour. The tenant must understand that apartment living requires common sense and respect for neighbours. The use of an airsoft gun is certainly foolish in such close confines of other apartments. The landlord will be quite within their rights to file a new application with the Tribunal in the event of future complaints.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order during the hearing. Although the landlord is not entitled to name suppression as the application is unsuccessful I order name suppression in line with the same order for the tenant– see section 95A RTA.
The tenant applied for non-publication of his name and identifying details. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case on this occasion. The landlord does not oppose this.
Because the application is unsuccessful I make no order reimbursing the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4852840 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4852840 — 14-day notice

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