What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4936393 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4936393?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4936393?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4936393?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10699861-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4936393 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4936393?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4936393?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4936393?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10699861-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4936393 — Harassment

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 applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is: a. Playing loud music at 12.19pm on 9 May 2024. b. Parking in a shared driveway on 7 June 2024. c. Yelling abuse at the owners on 8 July 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 tenancy is a one of 6 standalone units that are in close proximity to each other and share a driveway. Complaints about the tenant’s behaviour have come from one of the neighbours who own their unit. The tenant and these neighbours have been involved in other court proceedings and complaints about each other.
Although the landlord’s notices have been served in accordance with the Act, I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on each occasion.
The tenant accepts that he was playing loud music in the afternoon on 22 May 2024. He was not approached by anyone to turn it down.
Playing loud music in the afternoon may well disturb the neighbours and be a breach of the tenant’s obligations under section 40(2)(c) not to cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood, but in the absence of any other evidence, one instance of this at 12.19 in the afternoon cannot be classified as harassment or any act that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor. Continued or repeated instances after being advised that it is causing a disturbance might constitute anti-social behaviour, but on the facts of this case, I am not satisfied that anti-social behaviour has occurred. Accordingly, it was not necessary listen to a recording of the music that was produced to be heard.
The second notice concerns parking in the shared driveway on 7 June 2024. It reads: Parking in the shared driveway by yourself or your visitors, which blocked the neighbours access to their property. We have instructed you multiple times for you (or people visiting you) not to block access to other properties on the shared driveway.
Parking in a shared driveway on its own may not amount to anti-social behaviour, and again, would more commonly fit within section 40(2). However, repeated and determined breaches of the tenant’s obligation not to interfere with the peace and comfort of the neighbours might place it in that category.
The tenant volunteered to the Tribunal that on or about 24 April 2023 the landlord had spoken to the tenant about his car blocking the driveway. The tenant could remember this because the reason the car was not parked appropriately was because he and his partner were settling in with their son who had just been born.
The parties agreed that the only other time they had spoken about the parking was just after the incident on 7 June 2024. The landlord produced a photograph showing a car parked outside the tenant’s flat. Part of the vehicle encroaches the driveway. The photograph was taken by the neighbour on a dashboard camera.
The tenant said that on this occasion, his friend was visiting briefly. He was on crutches. There was someone else in the car who could have moved it if asked. He said the car was only there for a minute.
The parties agreed that following this incident the tenant rang the landlord to say that he thought the neighbour would complain about it. He gave the same explanation as he gave to the Tribunal.
A second photograph taken on 14 June, after the anti-social order was served, shows a vehicle parked behind the tenant’s flat. Part of the rear of the vehicle is on the driveway. It is not clear that it is actually blocking access.
In summary, based on the evidence before me, the tenant was spoken to in April 2023 about an issue with a vehicle blocking the driveway and then on 18 June 2024 was served with an anti-social behaviour notice about another incident that occurred on 8 June 2024. Those are the only two instances in which the landlord has raised it. I am not satisfied that the nature or extent of the parking issue can fairly be classified as anti-social behaviour.
I have determined that on two occasions, 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.
I therefore consider it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given.
I did not hear any further evidence on the third issue of yelling at the owners at the premises. I record, however, it is likely to amount to anti-social behaviour.
The tenant must remember that because the properties are in close proximity to each other, his behaviour may cause a disturbance, even if he does not intend it to. Neighbours do not want to hear him yelling at anyone. Even if such behaviour is directed at someone else, it can cause alarm and distress to the neighbours.
The tenant is reminded to take care when he parks his car. Whenever he has visitors, he should immediately ensure that their car is not blocking the driveway.
If he is served with any further anti-social behaviour notices which he disputes, he should file an application in the Tribunal to have the issue determined.
Because the tenant has been successful in defending this application, I have granted name suppression. Although the landlord has not been successful, I have also granted name suppression to them, given this application arises from an ongoing difficult relationship between two neighbours.

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 applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is: a. Playing loud music at 12.19pm on 9 May 2024. b. Parking in a shared driveway on 7 June 2024. c. Yelling abuse at the owners on 8 July 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 tenancy is a one of 6 standalone units that are in close proximity to each other and share a driveway. Complaints about the tenant’s behaviour have come from one of the neighbours who own their unit. The tenant and these neighbours have been involved in other court proceedings and complaints about each other.
Although the landlord’s notices have been served in accordance with the Act, I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on each occasion.
The tenant accepts that he was playing loud music in the afternoon on 22 May 2024. He was not approached by anyone to turn it down.
Playing loud music in the afternoon may well disturb the neighbours and be a breach of the tenant’s obligations under section 40(2)(c) not to cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood, but in the absence of any other evidence, one instance of this at 12.19 in the afternoon cannot be classified as harassment or any act that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor. Continued or repeated instances after being advised that it is causing a disturbance might constitute anti-social behaviour, but on the facts of this case, I am not satisfied that anti-social behaviour has occurred. Accordingly, it was not necessary listen to a recording of the music that was produced to be heard.
The second notice concerns parking in the shared driveway on 7 June 2024. It reads: Parking in the shared driveway by yourself or your visitors, which blocked the neighbours access to their property. We have instructed you multiple times for you (or people visiting you) not to block access to other properties on the shared driveway.
Parking in a shared driveway on its own may not amount to anti-social behaviour, and again, would more commonly fit within section 40(2). However, repeated and determined breaches of the tenant’s obligation not to interfere with the peace and comfort of the neighbours might place it in that category.
The tenant volunteered to the Tribunal that on or about 24 April 2023 the landlord had spoken to the tenant about his car blocking the driveway. The tenant could remember this because the reason the car was not parked appropriately was because he and his partner were settling in with their son who had just been born.
The parties agreed that the only other time they had spoken about the parking was just after the incident on 7 June 2024. The landlord produced a photograph showing a car parked outside the tenant’s flat. Part of the vehicle encroaches the driveway. The photograph was taken by the neighbour on a dashboard camera.
The tenant said that on this occasion, his friend was visiting briefly. He was on crutches. There was someone else in the car who could have moved it if asked. He said the car was only there for a minute.
The parties agreed that following this incident the tenant rang the landlord to say that he thought the neighbour would complain about it. He gave the same explanation as he gave to the Tribunal.
A second photograph taken on 14 June, after the anti-social order was served, shows a vehicle parked behind the tenant’s flat. Part of the rear of the vehicle is on the driveway. It is not clear that it is actually blocking access.
In summary, based on the evidence before me, the tenant was spoken to in April 2023 about an issue with a vehicle blocking the driveway and then on 18 June 2024 was served with an anti-social behaviour notice about another incident that occurred on 8 June 2024. Those are the only two instances in which the landlord has raised it. I am not satisfied that the nature or extent of the parking issue can fairly be classified as anti-social behaviour.
I have determined that on two occasions, 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.
I therefore consider it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given.
I did not hear any further evidence on the third issue of yelling at the owners at the premises. I record, however, it is likely to amount to anti-social behaviour.
The tenant must remember that because the properties are in close proximity to each other, his behaviour may cause a disturbance, even if he does not intend it to. Neighbours do not want to hear him yelling at anyone. Even if such behaviour is directed at someone else, it can cause alarm and distress to the neighbours.
The tenant is reminded to take care when he parks his car. Whenever he has visitors, he should immediately ensure that their car is not blocking the driveway.
If he is served with any further anti-social behaviour notices which he disputes, he should file an application in the Tribunal to have the issue determined.
Because the tenant has been successful in defending this application, I have granted name suppression. Although the landlord has not been successful, I have also granted name suppression to them, given this application arises from an ongoing difficult relationship between two neighbours.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4936393 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4936393 — 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