What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4969120 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4969120?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4969120?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4969120?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10842656-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4969120 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4969120?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4969120?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4969120?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10842656-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4969120 — Harassment

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
The landlord’s application for termination and possession is dismissed

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams.
Jeanean Newton and Steve Sheldon attended the hearing for the landlord by video.
The tenant attended by telephone. Background
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 and for breach.
Ms Newton says that the anti-social behaviour included: a. On 31 July 2024, playing loud music, parking over the shared driveway, harassing neighbour, fighting, and intentionally damaging a neighbour’s car. b. On 5 August 2024, threatening and yelling at neighbours. c. 4 September 2024. Adult and child arguing in the neighbour’s carpark. Another person, shirtless, ranting and raving loudly for several hours making neighbours fearful of entering their carpark. Neighbour’s car scratched.
The neighbours called Police on each of these occasions. The tenant has been charged with intentional damage in respect to the first incident. The tenant’s brother was the person who was ranting and raving is currently in a mental health unit.
The tenants says in respect to the first incident, it is the neighbour who was at fault because he threatened to cause her grievous bodily harm and she stood up for herself. She accepts her brother lost it on the third occasion due to his mental health problems. Otherwise she denies the allegations. She has been living at the premises for several years. She suffered a debilitating head injury earlier this year. However, she is confident that no similar events will occur again.

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.
Section 55A(7) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: In this section, anti-social behaviour means— (a) harassment; or (b) any other act or omission (whether intentional or not), if the act or omission reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person": MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1 defines “harassment” 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.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English“ 2 defines “harass” as: “subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation”.
The conduct complained of in this case is in the context of people’s private lives. In this context, the Tribunal (as a State actor) should be careful to not intrude upon citizens’ right to naturally be themselves and express themselves unless the statutory grounds are proven. Discussion
The landlord’s second and third notices are in the form of 14-day notices and therefore not in the form prescribed by s 55A.
The application under s 55A must be dismissed. 1 Bryan A Gardener (ed) Black’s Law Dictionary (8 th ed, West Group, 2004). 2 Patrick Hanks (ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998).

Should the tenancy be terminated for breach?

The landlord also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
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. 3
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.
In this case, I have not heard direct evidence from the neighbours about the nature of the tenant’s alleged breaches of RTA s 40(2)(c) of interfering with those neighbours’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. As a result, I was not given a cogent picture of the effect of the complaints on the neighbours.
The written hearsay material does raise legitimate concerns, but I am not persuaded that the tenant’s and the tenant’s guests behaviour is so serious or so repeated that is of a nature or extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate tenancy.
That being so, the application is dismissed under this ground also. Addendum
While the landlord has not made out its case for termination of this occasion. There is evidence that on more than one occasion neighbours have been disturbed, frightened, and suffered damage to their cars. This decision can be adduced in a future application if one has to be made.
If there are further incidents supported by cogent evidence, the Tribunal might be persuaded to come to a different conclusion on a future termination application.
Hearteningly, the tenant says she is confident that there will be no such problems in future. 3 RTA, s 56(1). Non-publication
The Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published.
The tenant has successfully resisted the claim. She has significant medical problems. Publication would likely hamper the tenant’s ability to obtain rental accommodation in the future. It is in her interests that her name and identifying details are not published. I have regard to the public interest. Given the claim was not made out, it is permissible to give precedence to the tenant’s interests in respect to non-publication.
Therefore, the Tribunal orders non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
The landlord’s application for termination and possession is dismissed

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams.
Jeanean Newton and Steve Sheldon attended the hearing for the landlord by video.
The tenant attended by telephone. Background
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 and for breach.
Ms Newton says that the anti-social behaviour included: a. On 31 July 2024, playing loud music, parking over the shared driveway, harassing neighbour, fighting, and intentionally damaging a neighbour’s car. b. On 5 August 2024, threatening and yelling at neighbours. c. 4 September 2024. Adult and child arguing in the neighbour’s carpark. Another person, shirtless, ranting and raving loudly for several hours making neighbours fearful of entering their carpark. Neighbour’s car scratched.
The neighbours called Police on each of these occasions. The tenant has been charged with intentional damage in respect to the first incident. The tenant’s brother was the person who was ranting and raving is currently in a mental health unit.
The tenants says in respect to the first incident, it is the neighbour who was at fault because he threatened to cause her grievous bodily harm and she stood up for herself. She accepts her brother lost it on the third occasion due to his mental health problems. Otherwise she denies the allegations. She has been living at the premises for several years. She suffered a debilitating head injury earlier this year. However, she is confident that no similar events will occur again.

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.
Section 55A(7) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: In this section, anti-social behaviour means— (a) harassment; or (b) any other act or omission (whether intentional or not), if the act or omission reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person": MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1 defines “harassment” 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.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English“ 2 defines “harass” as: “subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation”.
The conduct complained of in this case is in the context of people’s private lives. In this context, the Tribunal (as a State actor) should be careful to not intrude upon citizens’ right to naturally be themselves and express themselves unless the statutory grounds are proven. Discussion
The landlord’s second and third notices are in the form of 14-day notices and therefore not in the form prescribed by s 55A.
The application under s 55A must be dismissed. 1 Bryan A Gardener (ed) Black’s Law Dictionary (8 th ed, West Group, 2004). 2 Patrick Hanks (ed) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998).

Should the tenancy be terminated for breach?

The landlord also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
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. 3
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.
In this case, I have not heard direct evidence from the neighbours about the nature of the tenant’s alleged breaches of RTA s 40(2)(c) of interfering with those neighbours’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. As a result, I was not given a cogent picture of the effect of the complaints on the neighbours.
The written hearsay material does raise legitimate concerns, but I am not persuaded that the tenant’s and the tenant’s guests behaviour is so serious or so repeated that is of a nature or extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate tenancy.
That being so, the application is dismissed under this ground also. Addendum
While the landlord has not made out its case for termination of this occasion. There is evidence that on more than one occasion neighbours have been disturbed, frightened, and suffered damage to their cars. This decision can be adduced in a future application if one has to be made.
If there are further incidents supported by cogent evidence, the Tribunal might be persuaded to come to a different conclusion on a future termination application.
Hearteningly, the tenant says she is confident that there will be no such problems in future. 3 RTA, s 56(1). Non-publication
The Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published.
The tenant has successfully resisted the claim. She has significant medical problems. Publication would likely hamper the tenant’s ability to obtain rental accommodation in the future. It is in her interests that her name and identifying details are not published. I have regard to the public interest. Given the claim was not made out, it is permissible to give precedence to the tenant’s interests in respect to non-publication.
Therefore, the Tribunal orders non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4969120 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4969120 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for breach?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for breach?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for anti-social behaviour?

Should the tenancy be terminated for breach?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for anti-social behaviour?

Should the tenancy be terminated for breach?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions