What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4928033?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Peter Snowdon at Unit 3, Donhur Apartments, 122 Waihi Road,

How much money was awarded in case 4928033?

Is To Pay Tauranga Residential Renta…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4928033?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4928033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10958265-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4928033?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Peter Snowdon at Unit 3, Donhur Apartments, 122 Waihi Road,

How much money was awarded in case 4928033?

Is To Pay Tauranga Residential Renta…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4928033?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4928033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10958265-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 3, Donhur Apartments, 122 Waihi Road, Judea, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4928033 — 14-day notice

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4928033. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
is to pay Tauranga Residential Rentals Limited T/As Quinovic Property Management and Grenville Trust Partnership the fil	$27.00		is to pay Tauranga Residential Rentals Limited T/As Quinovic Property Management and Grenville Trust Partnership the fil

Order

The tenancy of Peter Snowdon at Unit 3, Donhur Apartments, 122 Waihi Road, Judea, Tauranga 3110, is terminated, and possession is granted to Tauranga Residential Rentals Limited T/As Quinovic Property Management and Grenville Trust Partnership, at 11.59pm on 29 November 2024.
Peter Snowdon is to pay Tauranga Residential Rentals Limited T/As Quinovic Property Management and Grenville Trust Partnership the filing fee of $27.00 by 29 November 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant Mr Snowdon appeared with a support worker and several other supporters.
The landlord has applied for termination of tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord alleges that the tenant has threatened to assault another tenant in the apartment complex (s 55(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986), and that he has breached the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of other tenants (s 40(2)(c) and 56(1) RTA).
The matter was first heard on 27 August 2024 in the tenant’s absence and a termination order was made.
On 4 September, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the basis that he was not notified of the hearing. A rehearing was granted. The timeline of events
The tenancy started on 15 December 2022.
On 27 March 2023, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant alleging loud and abusive behaviour towards other tenants.
On 24 April, the landlord served a 14-day notice alleging verbal abuse and drunken behaviour.
On 18 July, the landlord served a 14-day notice alleging loud and drunken noise outside unit 8, taking the occupant’s bicycle, and returning it with a cut in the tyre. The notice referred to anti-social behaviour, but it was not correctly drafted as a notice under s 55A RTA (which deals with termination for anti-social behaviour).
On 19 September, the landlord sent the tenant a notice alleging anti-social behaviour at approximately 9.00pm on 16 September. He was said to have caused loud and drunken noise outside unit 8 and threatened the tenant. The notice was said to be the second anti-social notice, although in fact it was the first.
On 29 September, the landlord sent the tenant a notice alleging anti-social behaviour after midnight on 28 September. He was said to have been drunk, banging on the door at unit 9, and yelling at the window. The notice said it was the third notice, but it was only the second.
The landlord applied for termination for anti-social behaviour, but it was dismissed due to the wording of the first notice and the lack of supporting witness statements.
On 20 November, the landlord sent the tenant a notice alleging anti-social behaviour on 10 November. He approached the tenant in unit 5, put his arm around her and kissed her on the cheek. This was unwelcome and caused her distress. This was a new first notice. The supporting statements also refer to him walking around the carpark holding a beer and abusing the tenant in unit 9.
On 21 December, the landlord sent the tenant a second notice alleging anti- social behaviour on 20 December. The notice said he was drunk and aggressive and threatened to kill the tenant in unit 9 when he refused to sell him a scooter on time payment. The tenant at unit 9 made a complaint to the Police, and the incident was witnessed by the tenant in unit 7. He described the tenant as very drunk and threatening to have his family come after the tenant from unit 9.
On 15 February 2024, the landlord sent the tenant a notice alleging anti-social behaviour on 14 February. Two tenants complained that he had visitors to his unit and that they were all drunk and disorderly. One of the guests threw a chair at the unit’s door and the tenant was heard to be swearing loudly. This was a new first notice.
On 30 April 2024, the landlord sent the tenant a second notice alleging anti-social behaviour on 23 April at 11:00pm. The tenant was said to be wandering around the apartment complex very intoxicated, abusing and threatening other tenants. The allegation is supported by statement from the tenant from unit 9. He says the tenant asked him for help unlocking his door and, when he declined, the tenant threatened that he and his family would kill him.
On 27 June, the landlord received a complaint from the occupant at unit 8 that on 30 April the tenant came to his door drunk and asking for a ride. When he declined the tenant started swearing and was verbally abusive. He says he felt threatened and closed the door. No notice was sent to the tenant from this incident.
On 14 August, the property manager says she spoke to the tenant about the hearing. She says she was “verbally attacked” with personal comments and the tenant was very aggressive.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

There are two grounds for termination, under s 55 and 56. I am not satisfied that the claim under s 55 is established, as the threats were more in the nature of abuse rather than serious threats of assault.
Under s 56(1) 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.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone. However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The previous order dated 27 August 2024 contains a very detailed discussion of s 56(1) and what types of breach are capable of remedy. It is not necessary to repeat that discussion, other than to say that, although a breach of reasonable peace, comfort or privacy cannot be undone, it can be regarded as capable of remedy if the effect of the breach can be remedied. Has the tenant breached the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the other tenants?
The tenant provided supporting documents about his personal and medical circumstances which go some way to explaining what has occurred. He gave oral evidence disputing some of the written evidence and the oral testimony given by the tenant of unit 9. He said: a. He was good friends with the tenant of unit 5 and was taken aback by her reaction to what was a “peck” on the cheek. b. The tenant at unit 8 kept taking his property, and he took his bicycle as he refused to give his phone back. c. He has complained about provocation and abuse from other tenants which has caused him anxiety, but his complaints have been ignored. d. He does not recall a lot of the alleged incidents (such as the complaint about the scooter) and the landlord is making a “mountain out of a molehill”. e. The tenant of unit 9 has turned other tenants against him. He has had to ask the tenant’s son to leave his unit due to aggressive behaviour. f. Other tenants are responsible for disorderly behaviour, and he once had to intervene in a domestic assault. g. He believes he can remedy the situation with the help of his support worker, by maintaining his medication and addressing alcohol issues.
The nature and extent of the right to reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy must take account the surrounding circumstances, and it is inevitable that there will be a greater level of interaction between neighbours in a complex of this kind where people live in close proximity. However, the very fact of close proximity requires occupants to be more circumspect than they would be in circumstances where their behaviour would not so closely impinge on others.
The behaviour complained of is arguably at the lower end of the spectrum, however, there have been numerous reported incidents. There have been three occasions where two anti-social notices were served within a 90-day period. The tenant had an opportunity to modify his behaviour after the first unsuccessful claim, but he did not.
While the tenant does not agree with or recall all of the incidents, given that alcohol was most likely involved (which would have likely affected his recollection of events) I find that the incidents described by the landlord occurred in the way described. Therefore, the tenant has breached the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the other tenants at the apartment complex. Is the effect of the breach capable of remedy and would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate?
The two issues are interconnected. The tenant believes that he can remedy the situation with the help of his support worker. The supporting documents he has provided detail recent efforts he has been making to improve his circumstances and it would be unfortunate if an unfavourable outcome to this case had an adverse effect on those efforts.
However, I have to balance the tenant’s interests against those of the other occupants, and I have no reason to doubt the property manager’s evidence that his conduct continues to have an adverse effect on the other residents.
This is one of those situations where the ongoing effect of the previous breaches cannot realistically be remedied. Therefore, I find that it would be unfair on the other tenants (i.e., inequitable) for the Tribunal not to terminate the tenancy. Although the tenant may not agree, it may also be better for him to start with a clean slate in a new living situation.
Having determined that the tenancy should end, the situation is not so serious that the tenancy needs to be terminated on short notice. The tenant’s support worker said that a period of six weeks may provide sufficient time to find alternative accommodation. I acknowledge that this may not be easy, but it would be unrealistic to allow a longer period. Filing fee
Because the landlord has succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. However, I have ordered that it is to be paid at the end of the tenancy. J P Smith 18 October 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4928033. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
is to pay Tauranga Residential Rentals Limited T/As Quinovic Property Management and Grenville Trust Partnership the fil	$27.00		is to pay Tauranga Residential Rentals Limited T/As Quinovic Property Management and Grenville Trust Partnership the fil

Order

The tenancy of Peter Snowdon at Unit 3, Donhur Apartments, 122 Waihi Road, Judea, Tauranga 3110, is terminated, and possession is granted to Tauranga Residential Rentals Limited T/As Quinovic Property Management and Grenville Trust Partnership, at 11.59pm on 29 November 2024.
Peter Snowdon is to pay Tauranga Residential Rentals Limited T/As Quinovic Property Management and Grenville Trust Partnership the filing fee of $27.00 by 29 November 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant Mr Snowdon appeared with a support worker and several other supporters.
The landlord has applied for termination of tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord alleges that the tenant has threatened to assault another tenant in the apartment complex (s 55(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986), and that he has breached the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of other tenants (s 40(2)(c) and 56(1) RTA).
The matter was first heard on 27 August 2024 in the tenant’s absence and a termination order was made.
On 4 September, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the basis that he was not notified of the hearing. A rehearing was granted. The timeline of events
The tenancy started on 15 December 2022.
On 27 March 2023, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant alleging loud and abusive behaviour towards other tenants.
On 24 April, the landlord served a 14-day notice alleging verbal abuse and drunken behaviour.
On 18 July, the landlord served a 14-day notice alleging loud and drunken noise outside unit 8, taking the occupant’s bicycle, and returning it with a cut in the tyre. The notice referred to anti-social behaviour, but it was not correctly drafted as a notice under s 55A RTA (which deals with termination for anti-social behaviour).
On 19 September, the landlord sent the tenant a notice alleging anti-social behaviour at approximately 9.00pm on 16 September. He was said to have caused loud and drunken noise outside unit 8 and threatened the tenant. The notice was said to be the second anti-social notice, although in fact it was the first.
On 29 September, the landlord sent the tenant a notice alleging anti-social behaviour after midnight on 28 September. He was said to have been drunk, banging on the door at unit 9, and yelling at the window. The notice said it was the third notice, but it was only the second.
The landlord applied for termination for anti-social behaviour, but it was dismissed due to the wording of the first notice and the lack of supporting witness statements.
On 20 November, the landlord sent the tenant a notice alleging anti-social behaviour on 10 November. He approached the tenant in unit 5, put his arm around her and kissed her on the cheek. This was unwelcome and caused her distress. This was a new first notice. The supporting statements also refer to him walking around the carpark holding a beer and abusing the tenant in unit 9.
On 21 December, the landlord sent the tenant a second notice alleging anti- social behaviour on 20 December. The notice said he was drunk and aggressive and threatened to kill the tenant in unit 9 when he refused to sell him a scooter on time payment. The tenant at unit 9 made a complaint to the Police, and the incident was witnessed by the tenant in unit 7. He described the tenant as very drunk and threatening to have his family come after the tenant from unit 9.
On 15 February 2024, the landlord sent the tenant a notice alleging anti-social behaviour on 14 February. Two tenants complained that he had visitors to his unit and that they were all drunk and disorderly. One of the guests threw a chair at the unit’s door and the tenant was heard to be swearing loudly. This was a new first notice.
On 30 April 2024, the landlord sent the tenant a second notice alleging anti-social behaviour on 23 April at 11:00pm. The tenant was said to be wandering around the apartment complex very intoxicated, abusing and threatening other tenants. The allegation is supported by statement from the tenant from unit 9. He says the tenant asked him for help unlocking his door and, when he declined, the tenant threatened that he and his family would kill him.
On 27 June, the landlord received a complaint from the occupant at unit 8 that on 30 April the tenant came to his door drunk and asking for a ride. When he declined the tenant started swearing and was verbally abusive. He says he felt threatened and closed the door. No notice was sent to the tenant from this incident.
On 14 August, the property manager says she spoke to the tenant about the hearing. She says she was “verbally attacked” with personal comments and the tenant was very aggressive.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

There are two grounds for termination, under s 55 and 56. I am not satisfied that the claim under s 55 is established, as the threats were more in the nature of abuse rather than serious threats of assault.
Under s 56(1) 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.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone. However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The previous order dated 27 August 2024 contains a very detailed discussion of s 56(1) and what types of breach are capable of remedy. It is not necessary to repeat that discussion, other than to say that, although a breach of reasonable peace, comfort or privacy cannot be undone, it can be regarded as capable of remedy if the effect of the breach can be remedied. Has the tenant breached the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the other tenants?
The tenant provided supporting documents about his personal and medical circumstances which go some way to explaining what has occurred. He gave oral evidence disputing some of the written evidence and the oral testimony given by the tenant of unit 9. He said: a. He was good friends with the tenant of unit 5 and was taken aback by her reaction to what was a “peck” on the cheek. b. The tenant at unit 8 kept taking his property, and he took his bicycle as he refused to give his phone back. c. He has complained about provocation and abuse from other tenants which has caused him anxiety, but his complaints have been ignored. d. He does not recall a lot of the alleged incidents (such as the complaint about the scooter) and the landlord is making a “mountain out of a molehill”. e. The tenant of unit 9 has turned other tenants against him. He has had to ask the tenant’s son to leave his unit due to aggressive behaviour. f. Other tenants are responsible for disorderly behaviour, and he once had to intervene in a domestic assault. g. He believes he can remedy the situation with the help of his support worker, by maintaining his medication and addressing alcohol issues.
The nature and extent of the right to reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy must take account the surrounding circumstances, and it is inevitable that there will be a greater level of interaction between neighbours in a complex of this kind where people live in close proximity. However, the very fact of close proximity requires occupants to be more circumspect than they would be in circumstances where their behaviour would not so closely impinge on others.
The behaviour complained of is arguably at the lower end of the spectrum, however, there have been numerous reported incidents. There have been three occasions where two anti-social notices were served within a 90-day period. The tenant had an opportunity to modify his behaviour after the first unsuccessful claim, but he did not.
While the tenant does not agree with or recall all of the incidents, given that alcohol was most likely involved (which would have likely affected his recollection of events) I find that the incidents described by the landlord occurred in the way described. Therefore, the tenant has breached the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the other tenants at the apartment complex. Is the effect of the breach capable of remedy and would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate?
The two issues are interconnected. The tenant believes that he can remedy the situation with the help of his support worker. The supporting documents he has provided detail recent efforts he has been making to improve his circumstances and it would be unfortunate if an unfavourable outcome to this case had an adverse effect on those efforts.
However, I have to balance the tenant’s interests against those of the other occupants, and I have no reason to doubt the property manager’s evidence that his conduct continues to have an adverse effect on the other residents.
This is one of those situations where the ongoing effect of the previous breaches cannot realistically be remedied. Therefore, I find that it would be unfair on the other tenants (i.e., inequitable) for the Tribunal not to terminate the tenancy. Although the tenant may not agree, it may also be better for him to start with a clean slate in a new living situation.
Having determined that the tenancy should end, the situation is not so serious that the tenancy needs to be terminated on short notice. The tenant’s support worker said that a period of six weeks may provide sufficient time to find alternative accommodation. I acknowledge that this may not be easy, but it would be unrealistic to allow a longer period. Filing fee
Because the landlord has succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. However, I have ordered that it is to be paid at the end of the tenancy. J P Smith 18 October 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4928033 — 14-day notice at Unit 3, Donhur Apartments, 122 Waihi Road, Judea,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4928033 — 14-day notice at Unit 3, Donhur Apartments, 122 Waihi Road, Judea,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions