What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4859743 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4859743?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4859743?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4859743?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10669465-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4859743 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4859743?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4859743?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4859743?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10669465-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4859743 — 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 has served notices on the tenant for anti-social behaviour as follows: • The first notice was served on 22 February 2024. It referred to an incident occurring on 21 February 2024 during the night time where the tenant and her partner were arguing loudly, the dog was barking and they were disturbing the peace of surrounding neighbours. • The second notice was served on 28 February 2024. It referred to an incident occurring on 28 February 2024 at 7:30 - 8:00 am. On this occasion the tenant and her partner were arguing loudly, yelling and screaming. Police had to attend to calm matters. • The third notice was served on 9 April 2024. It referred to an incident occurring on 9 April 2024. There was shouting and arguing with each other. Name calling was heard ‘Thief give me my money’. Cupboards and doors were heard slamming and banging. Police were called and attended.
The landlord gave evidence that it had received complaints from neighbours of numerous domestic disputes between the tenant and her partner which was also the subject of a previous application to the Tribunal. The landlord was concerned that these incidents have been ongoing since February which has been increasingly upsetting to the neighbours. Video/audio evidence of a further incident witnessed by the landlord regarding a domestic dispute between the tenant and her partner was presented. The landlord’s view is that this has breached the neighbours’ peace and quiet enjoyment, and constitutes anti-social behaviour. The landlord wants the tenancy to end.
The tenant does not want the tenancy to end. She did not recall the first incident. Her view was that some complaints had been exaggerated and catastrophised by a neighbour who she felt had targeted her and has held a vendetta against her for a number of years. The tenant confirmed that there was some truth in the other two disturbances detailed in the Anti-social Behaviour Notices and in the video/audio recording which were created by her partner. She did not dispute that there had been disruptions. She apologised for them and said that she had also apologised to her neighbours for these disturbances. While admitting some of the elements of the allegations, she was quite clear that their severity at times had been significantly overstated. However, she acknowledged that she understood the seriousness of the complaints and that it was her responsibility to have made sure that such events did not keep occurring. She noted that her partner had been going through mental health issues and was now receiving help through grief counselling. She said it was only her and her daughter now living at the premises. She said that she had taken steps to ensure no further disturbances would occur and had applied for a protection order against her partner which was issued on the day of the hearing.
Under section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (|RTA”), 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 landlord’s notices comply with these formal requirements.
The RTA 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.
“Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in Macdonald v Dodds DC Hamilton CIV-2009-019-1524, 26 February 2010 considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in this case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behavior directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: “Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.”
From these definitions it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987 the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
While it is undeniable that a loud and abusive domestic dispute between people at a neighbouring property can reasonably cause alarm or distress, the question is whether such alarm or distress is more than minor. This requires an objective assessment of the evidence, most of which are from third parties who did not give evidence directly. The landlord also did not produce emails or witness statements from the neighbours supplying the information on which the three notices were based.
No Police lists of call outs were produced either. Although, a Police call out on its own would not necessarily be sufficient to amount to evidence of anti-social behaviour.
The onus of proof is on the landlord to establish its claim on the balance of probabilities. There must be evidence of the nature and extent of the behaviour as it affects the neighbours for the Tribunal to determine if a breach has occurred. It is important that the Tribunal does not simply take them at face value, especially where the evidence is anonymous and the witnesses are not available to speak to their evidence and be cross-examined.
For the reasons noted above, I am not satisfied that the landlord has been able to adequately support the allegations made by the neighbours and prove that they occurred to a sufficient standard.
I have not considered the impact on the tenant, in declining to make an order for termination of the tenancy, as I am required not to do. See section 55A(4) RTA.
As a note of caution, the tenant should be aware that she is responsible for the actions of any person on the premises with her permission. She does not need to be involved in or instigate those actions. She needs to be conscious of the fact that any person she permits at the premises may jeopardise her tenancy.
As the landlord’s application was not successful, I have ordered suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Regrettably, there has been a delay in sending this order to the parties due to a technical oversight. I apologise for the delay and any inconvenience this may have caused the parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4859743 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4859743 — 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