What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4997068 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4997068?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4997068?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4997068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11099091-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4997068 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4997068?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4997068?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4997068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11099091-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 59 Pah Road, Cockle Bay, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4997068 — Harassment

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited Jo Millerat Unit/Flat 2, 59 Pah Road, Cockle Bay, Auckland 2014 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 6pm on Tuesday 26 November 2024

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 landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is loud parties and music until the early hours of the morning, banging on the wall that divides units 1 and 2, fighting, swearing and revving motorcycles outside the unit.
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.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices that were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
While I note that the notices are not as specific as required, the complaints accompanying the notices set out the detailed behaviours complained of and it is at the most serious end of the spectrum of disturbances. The neighbours in the adjoining unit have an 8 year old daughter whose schooling and mental health is being negatively impacted.
The landlord had also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Even if the technical deficiencies in the anti social notices issued were sufficient to render that process invalid, the tenancy is to be terminated under s 56 (1) of the Act.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 tenant has breached their obligations by continually interfering with the reasonable peace of other occupants in the area and particularly the peace of the unit 1 occupants.
The breach is not capable of remedy because the events complained of cannot be undone and because of the serious and ongoing nature of the disturbances, despite repeated warnings over many months.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the reasons provided.
The tenant said that while it had endeavoured to move the occupant of the unit this had proven difficult and nothing concrete was in place. The tenant also said that it was aware of and concerned about the allegations and that it would abide by the Tribunal’s decision and had little more to add in response.
The landlord said that the maximum timeframe permitted for the tenancy to end is one week, so the tenancy is to terminate in 7 days time as outlined.
The landlord’s request for name suppression is approved as the application is successful.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited Jo Millerat Unit/Flat 2, 59 Pah Road, Cockle Bay, Auckland 2014 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 6pm on Tuesday 26 November 2024

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 landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is loud parties and music until the early hours of the morning, banging on the wall that divides units 1 and 2, fighting, swearing and revving motorcycles outside the unit.
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.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices that were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
While I note that the notices are not as specific as required, the complaints accompanying the notices set out the detailed behaviours complained of and it is at the most serious end of the spectrum of disturbances. The neighbours in the adjoining unit have an 8 year old daughter whose schooling and mental health is being negatively impacted.
The landlord had also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Even if the technical deficiencies in the anti social notices issued were sufficient to render that process invalid, the tenancy is to be terminated under s 56 (1) of the Act.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 tenant has breached their obligations by continually interfering with the reasonable peace of other occupants in the area and particularly the peace of the unit 1 occupants.
The breach is not capable of remedy because the events complained of cannot be undone and because of the serious and ongoing nature of the disturbances, despite repeated warnings over many months.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the reasons provided.
The tenant said that while it had endeavoured to move the occupant of the unit this had proven difficult and nothing concrete was in place. The tenant also said that it was aware of and concerned about the allegations and that it would abide by the Tribunal’s decision and had little more to add in response.
The landlord said that the maximum timeframe permitted for the tenancy to end is one week, so the tenancy is to terminate in 7 days time as outlined.
The landlord’s request for name suppression is approved as the application is successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4997068 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 2, 59 Pah Road, Cockle Bay, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4997068 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 2, 59 Pah Road, Cockle Bay, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions