What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5001389 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 518, 139B Greys Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 5001389?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5001389?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5001389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10885434-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5001389 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 518, 139B Greys Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 5001389?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5001389?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5001389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10885434-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 518, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5001389 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 518, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 am on Tuesday 1 October 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing.
The tenant made a request to the landlord at 1 pm on the day of the hearing to be supported by both a support person and a mental health worker. I agreed to them attending the hearing.
Whilst explaining the matters to be considered and the process, the tenant continually interrupted the proceedings. This made it very difficult to conduct a hearing.
The tenant was warned that if her behaviour continued, she would be removed from the hearing and that it would proceed in her absence. It was explained that she would be given 2 warnings and that if it occurred a third time, she would be removed from the hearing. Unfortunately, the tenant continued to talk. Warnings were issued to the tenant. On the third occasion, the tenant and her support were removed from the hearing.
The tenant lives in a large residential complex along with 148 other tenants. The complex is operated by staff of the landlord who are present 24 hours a day.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour by the tenant.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is; • Threatening staff. • Spitting on another tenant of the premises. • Throwing pies.
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 landlord as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant . 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.
The landlord has given three notices to the tenant since 23 July 2024. The behaviour relates to incidents that occurred between 18 July 2024 and 11 August 2024.
The first notice dated 23 July 2024 relates to an incident on 18 July 2024. The tenant told a staff member to “fuck off” and then threatened to smash a computer over their head.
The second notice is dated 30 July 2024. It relates to an incident on 27 July 2024. Within the tenanted complex is a shop. The tenant attempted to remove pies from the shop without paying for them. Upon being chased by the shop owner, the tenant proceeded to throw the pies at the shop owner. The police were called.
The third notice is dated 2 September 2024 and relates to an incident on 11 August 2024 where the tenant spat on another tenant. Once again, the police were called.
All notices are within 90 days of each other. I am satisfied that there have been on three occasions where the tenant engaged in antisocial behaviour.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices 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.
The tenancy is terminated at 11.59 am on Tuesday 1 October 2024.
The landlord did not apply for name suppression. The tenant was removed from the hearing before I was able to ascertain her views on suppression and so have proceeded on the basis that the tenant would wish to have her name suppressed. The landlord supported the application by the tenant for suppression. I have considered the issue of the public interest in knowing the details of this matter. I am also conscious of medical conditions suffered by the tenant. In those circumstances, I make an order suppressing the tenant name only.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 518, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 am on Tuesday 1 October 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing.
The tenant made a request to the landlord at 1 pm on the day of the hearing to be supported by both a support person and a mental health worker. I agreed to them attending the hearing.
Whilst explaining the matters to be considered and the process, the tenant continually interrupted the proceedings. This made it very difficult to conduct a hearing.
The tenant was warned that if her behaviour continued, she would be removed from the hearing and that it would proceed in her absence. It was explained that she would be given 2 warnings and that if it occurred a third time, she would be removed from the hearing. Unfortunately, the tenant continued to talk. Warnings were issued to the tenant. On the third occasion, the tenant and her support were removed from the hearing.
The tenant lives in a large residential complex along with 148 other tenants. The complex is operated by staff of the landlord who are present 24 hours a day.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour by the tenant.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is; • Threatening staff. • Spitting on another tenant of the premises. • Throwing pies.
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 landlord as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant . 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.
The landlord has given three notices to the tenant since 23 July 2024. The behaviour relates to incidents that occurred between 18 July 2024 and 11 August 2024.
The first notice dated 23 July 2024 relates to an incident on 18 July 2024. The tenant told a staff member to “fuck off” and then threatened to smash a computer over their head.
The second notice is dated 30 July 2024. It relates to an incident on 27 July 2024. Within the tenanted complex is a shop. The tenant attempted to remove pies from the shop without paying for them. Upon being chased by the shop owner, the tenant proceeded to throw the pies at the shop owner. The police were called.
The third notice is dated 2 September 2024 and relates to an incident on 11 August 2024 where the tenant spat on another tenant. Once again, the police were called.
All notices are within 90 days of each other. I am satisfied that there have been on three occasions where the tenant engaged in antisocial behaviour.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices 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.
The tenancy is terminated at 11.59 am on Tuesday 1 October 2024.
The landlord did not apply for name suppression. The tenant was removed from the hearing before I was able to ascertain her views on suppression and so have proceeded on the basis that the tenant would wish to have her name suppressed. The landlord supported the application by the tenant for suppression. I have considered the issue of the public interest in knowing the details of this matter. I am also conscious of medical conditions suffered by the tenant. In those circumstances, I make an order suppressing the tenant name only.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5001389 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Unit 518, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5001389 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Unit 518, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions