What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5033670 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 29A Achilles Crescent, Narrow Neck, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5033670?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5033670?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5033670?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11029762-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5033670 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 29A Achilles Crescent, Narrow Neck, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5033670?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5033670?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5033670?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11029762-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

29A Achilles Crescent, Narrow Neck, Auckland 0624 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5033670 — Harassment

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video. An attempt was made to join the tenant to the hearing by telephone but the calls were not answered.

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 yelling, arguing, swearing, verbally and racially abusing neighbours and throwing items. The landlord has produced three statements from neighbours affected by the behaviour.

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 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.

Some of the anti-social behaviour involves the 15-year-old son of the tenant.

After taking account of the public interest, I have decided to suppress the name of the tenant so as to avoid any possibility of his son being identified in accordance with section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 29A Achilles Crescent, Narrow Neck, Auckland 0624 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video. An attempt was made to join the tenant to the hearing by telephone but the calls were not answered.
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 yelling, arguing, swearing, verbally and racially abusing neighbours and throwing items. The landlord has produced three statements from neighbours affected by the behaviour.
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 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.
Some of the anti-social behaviour involves the 15-year-old son of the tenant.
After taking account of the public interest, I have decided to suppress the name of the tenant so as to avoid any possibility of his son being identified in accordance with section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5033670 — Harassment at 29A Achilles Crescent, Narrow Neck, Auckland 0624

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5033670 — Harassment at 29A Achilles Crescent, Narrow Neck, Auckland 0624

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions