What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5007689 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5007689?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5007689?

The primary dispute was Illegal Lockout. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5007689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11034037-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5007689 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5007689?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5007689?

The primary dispute was Illegal Lockout. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5007689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11034037-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5007689 — Illegal Lockout

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone represented by Ms Herewini. The Tribunal attempted to call the tenant twice on the cell phone number provided for him in the application, but the calls were not answered and disconnected. The landlord advised that the tenant had called her from this cell phone number 3-4 weeks ago and believes it is still his current contact number. I am satisfied that the tenant received notice of the hearing and chose not to attend.
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 is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord states that the tenant and/or people at the premises with the tenant’s permission have engaged in anti-social behaviour towards other residents in the apartment complex, by doing the following: a. Being drunk and shouting in the common areas of the complex in the early hours of the morning on 30 August 2024; b. One visitor (who regularly visits the tenant) climbing over a railing and on top of mailboxes to try and gain entry to the apartment building in which the tenant’s unit is located, after the tenant locked him out, on 15 September 2024; c. Loud party noise including shouting, fighting and suspected drug use at the premises from late at night until the early hours of the following morning on 23 and 24 September 2024; d. Visitors in the common area courtyard at the complex yelling out to be let in when the tenant was not home on 27 September 2024; e. A visitor banging on the tenants’ apartment door with a stick when the tenant would not allow him entry on 25 October 2024.
Subject to certain considerations, under section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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 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. The section prescribes strict processes that should be followed by the landlord when giving notices for anti-social behaviour that may lead to termination.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the landlord summarised above.
The landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant pr persons permitted by him to be at the premises have committed acts of anti- social behaviour on three separate occasions within a 90-day period because: a. There was a lack of direct evidence from witnesses of what the behaviour was and who did it. The landlord tells me this is because the neighbours who witnessed the behaviour are reluctant and fearful of giving evidence. Unless the Tribunal has evidence directly from the people who saw or heard the antisocial behaviour or has evidence such as photographs or videos which show the antisocial behaviour or Police reports or noise control reports which describe the behaviour, it cannot act simply on what the landlord has been told by neighbours. When the landlord gives evidence of what they have been told, but not witnessed themselves, it is hearsay. Hearsay evidence is evidence that is not directly seen, heard, or spoken by the person that is giving the evidence to the Tribunal. Whilst the Tribunal can accept hearsay evidence, it is always given much less weight than evidence given by the person who was there. That is because the person who was there can answer questions about what they saw or heard, and the Adjudicator can make an assessment about the witnesses’ credibility. b. There was insufficient evidence to link the tenant to three incidents of anti- social behaviour. In one incident, the tenant was not home. In two other incidents, the evidence was that the tenant had either locked out or would not allow entry to the visitors who then caused the disturbance. Therefore, it is difficult to find that the visitors were at the premises with the tenant’s permission.
If the tenant’s neighbours are concerned about behaviour, they would be best to contact the police or noise control immediately, who can investigate the behaviour and complaints. Neighbours who then report to landlords need to be specific about the type of behaviour, when it occurred and who did it. They should be aware that the landlord has the burden of proving that the tenant is engaging in any antisocial behaviour. This may mean that the neighbours will be called upon to give evidence or should provide any documentary evidence such as photographs or video recordings to the landlord. A landlord who is unable to meet the evidential burden will not be able to prove their claim.
The landlord explained that the problem for this tenant is that his visitors are mostly causing the disruption and he finds it difficult to refuse them entry to the premises. The tenant may need to consider issuing those visitors with a trespass notice and/or calling the Police if they try to access the premises when he does not want them there. Should there be further incidents which result in another termination application from the landlord, he may be in jeopardy of losing his home and tenancy.
Because the landlord has not proved the claim on this occasion, the application is dismissed.
As the landlord has not succeeded with their application, it is appropriate to suppress the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone represented by Ms Herewini. The Tribunal attempted to call the tenant twice on the cell phone number provided for him in the application, but the calls were not answered and disconnected. The landlord advised that the tenant had called her from this cell phone number 3-4 weeks ago and believes it is still his current contact number. I am satisfied that the tenant received notice of the hearing and chose not to attend.
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 is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord states that the tenant and/or people at the premises with the tenant’s permission have engaged in anti-social behaviour towards other residents in the apartment complex, by doing the following: a. Being drunk and shouting in the common areas of the complex in the early hours of the morning on 30 August 2024; b. One visitor (who regularly visits the tenant) climbing over a railing and on top of mailboxes to try and gain entry to the apartment building in which the tenant’s unit is located, after the tenant locked him out, on 15 September 2024; c. Loud party noise including shouting, fighting and suspected drug use at the premises from late at night until the early hours of the following morning on 23 and 24 September 2024; d. Visitors in the common area courtyard at the complex yelling out to be let in when the tenant was not home on 27 September 2024; e. A visitor banging on the tenants’ apartment door with a stick when the tenant would not allow him entry on 25 October 2024.
Subject to certain considerations, under section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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 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. The section prescribes strict processes that should be followed by the landlord when giving notices for anti-social behaviour that may lead to termination.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the landlord summarised above.
The landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant pr persons permitted by him to be at the premises have committed acts of anti- social behaviour on three separate occasions within a 90-day period because: a. There was a lack of direct evidence from witnesses of what the behaviour was and who did it. The landlord tells me this is because the neighbours who witnessed the behaviour are reluctant and fearful of giving evidence. Unless the Tribunal has evidence directly from the people who saw or heard the antisocial behaviour or has evidence such as photographs or videos which show the antisocial behaviour or Police reports or noise control reports which describe the behaviour, it cannot act simply on what the landlord has been told by neighbours. When the landlord gives evidence of what they have been told, but not witnessed themselves, it is hearsay. Hearsay evidence is evidence that is not directly seen, heard, or spoken by the person that is giving the evidence to the Tribunal. Whilst the Tribunal can accept hearsay evidence, it is always given much less weight than evidence given by the person who was there. That is because the person who was there can answer questions about what they saw or heard, and the Adjudicator can make an assessment about the witnesses’ credibility. b. There was insufficient evidence to link the tenant to three incidents of anti- social behaviour. In one incident, the tenant was not home. In two other incidents, the evidence was that the tenant had either locked out or would not allow entry to the visitors who then caused the disturbance. Therefore, it is difficult to find that the visitors were at the premises with the tenant’s permission.
If the tenant’s neighbours are concerned about behaviour, they would be best to contact the police or noise control immediately, who can investigate the behaviour and complaints. Neighbours who then report to landlords need to be specific about the type of behaviour, when it occurred and who did it. They should be aware that the landlord has the burden of proving that the tenant is engaging in any antisocial behaviour. This may mean that the neighbours will be called upon to give evidence or should provide any documentary evidence such as photographs or video recordings to the landlord. A landlord who is unable to meet the evidential burden will not be able to prove their claim.
The landlord explained that the problem for this tenant is that his visitors are mostly causing the disruption and he finds it difficult to refuse them entry to the premises. The tenant may need to consider issuing those visitors with a trespass notice and/or calling the Police if they try to access the premises when he does not want them there. Should there be further incidents which result in another termination application from the landlord, he may be in jeopardy of losing his home and tenancy.
Because the landlord has not proved the claim on this occasion, the application is dismissed.
As the landlord has not succeeded with their application, it is appropriate to suppress the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5007689 — Illegal Lockout

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5007689 — Illegal Lockout

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