What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4940616 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4940616?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940616?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940616?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10886302-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4940616 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4940616?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940616?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940616?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10886302-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 9, 218 Stanmore Road, Richmond, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4940616 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The tenant, Mr Huffman, attended the hearing. Ms Eder attended for the landlord.

The tenant has applied for orders declaring three notices that the landlord has served on him invalid.

The notices are dated 6 March, 20 May and 25 May 2024. They relate to events on 29 February, 14 May and 21 May respectively.

The first notice is an anti-social behaviour notice served under s55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and relates to an interaction between the tenant and two of the landlord’s staff members.

The Act expressly provides that a tenant in receipt of such a notice may apply to the Tribunal to set it aside and if such an application is made it is for the landlord to prove that the notice is valid.

The Act also provides that to apply for termination of the tenancy under s55A, the landlord must serve three such notices within a 90-day period and make its application within 28 days of the serving the third notice.

The landlord has not served any other such notices and plainly the notice that has been served cannot now be relied on because any further notice would now be outside the 90-day period. The issue of whether the notice does relate to anti-social behaviour is therefore moot.

The other two notices were served under 56 of the Act and allege a breach of the tenant’s obligation not to interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of other tenants. A failure to comply with such a notice can be a ground for terminating a tenancy.

The landlord has not filed an application to terminate the tenancy on the ground that the tenant has failed to comply with the notices. Ms Eder confirmed that it has no intention of doing so.

It follows that nothing would be served by a decision of the Tribunal as to whether the landlord was justified in serving the notices. It is not a good use of the Tribunal’s time, the parties’ time or the time of the witnesses that the parties brought to the hearing to hear and determine this kind of pre-emptory application. The issues that the tenant has asked the Tribunal to determine should be left to an occasion when the outcome may have some practical effect.

The tenant claimed that the notices were served in bad faith. I am not making any decision in relation the notices, but I must say that having read the documents that have been filed and having had considerable experience of dealing with cases involving the landlord, I believe that it is unlikely in the extreme that the tenant would be able to prove that claim. I note that when landlords receive a credible complaint of nuisance by one tenant against other tenant, they have an obligation under s45(1)(e) of the Act to take all reasonable steps to ensure the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the complainant is not interfered with.

The application is therefore dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant, Mr Huffman, attended the hearing. Ms Eder attended for the landlord.

The tenant has applied for orders declaring three notices that the landlord has served on him invalid.

The notices are dated 6 March, 20 May and 25 May 2024. They relate to events on 29 February, 14 May and 21 May respectively.

The landlord has not filed an application to terminate the tenancy on the ground that the tenant has failed to comply with the notices. Ms Eder confirmed that it has no intention of doing so.

The application is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940616 — Tenancy dispute at Flat 9, 218 Stanmore Road, Richmond, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940616 — Tenancy dispute at Flat 9, 218 Stanmore Road, Richmond, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions