What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5074308 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5074308?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5074308?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5074308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11186487-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5074308 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5074308?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5074308?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5074308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11186487-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

23A Salisbury Avenue, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5074308 — Harassment

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of: a. Anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission. See section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). b. Exceeding the maximum number of tenants living at the premises and not remedying this breach. See sections 40(3) and 56(1) RTA. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the landlord’s application, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is more likely than not. I have considered each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, I have considered all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I have weighed this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
While I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, I have referred in this Order only to the most relevant or important evidence.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence. Termination for anti-social behaviour
The landlord provided copies of the following notices issued to the tenant: a. Notice 1: 24 October 2024. On 19 October 2024 around 10 am “Your sister and partner verbally abused a neighbour and her sister. Your partner then physically assaulted her by kicking and dragged her by the hair. A police report has been made.” b. Notice 2: 11 November 2024.On 7 November 2024 around 7 am “Verbally threatening and abusing a neighbour, when a neighbour chased your dog off their property.” c. Notice 3: 18 November 2024. On “Sunday morning” the tenant’s partner “verbally abused a neighbour.”
The property is one of two houses at the address and the complaints have come from the neighbour.
The landlord provided a written statement from the neighbour detailing the incidents. While this document was headed “Affidavit” it was not sworn nor affirmed in accordance with the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957. It is therefore a written statement from the unnamed neighbour.
The landlord advised that the author of the statement, nor any neighbour of the tenant was willing to come to the Tribunal to give evidence in person. There was therefore no opportunity to question the author of the statement or for the tenant to cross-examine her.
The landlord explained that the incident referred to in Notice 1 was the most serious and understandably caused the most concern to the neighbour and was reported to the police.
The tenant accepted that: a. Her sister and the neighbour had argued loudly. b. The argument accelerated and became increasingly heated. c. It ended in a physical brawl between her sister and the neighbour. d. The incident lasted about an hour.
The tenant gave evidence that: a. She understands that while she did not instigate this incident and it largely involved her sister and a cousin, she is responsible for the actions of visitors to the property. b. While the police were called, no person was arrested or charged and the police have taken no further steps in relation to the incident. c. Her sister had been staying with her but has left the property since this incident and will not be returning. d. She was very upset by the incident, its impact on the neighbour and the deterioration in their relationship which had been that of friends to that point.
In relation to Notice 2, the tenant accepted that she had yelled at and verbally abused the neighbour because the neighbour had thrown driftwood at her dog which had wandered onto part of the unfenced property that is part of the neighbour’s tenancy.
In relation to Notice 3, the tenant denied that her partner verbally abused the neighbour. She gave evidence that he was not at the property around that time and that he was with his father who was in hospital. Consideration and decision
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 RTA provides 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 specific requirements spelled out in the section as enacted by Parliament reflect the seriousness of the consequences and social stigma for a tenant of having their tenancy terminated for anti-social behaviour. Fulfilling the formal requirements for the content of notices under section 55A RTA is essential for an application to succeed. Any failure to meet those requirements is fatal to a claim under this section.
As the allegations are of a serious nature, the Tribunal needs to be satisfied that there is a proper factual basis to terminate where such allegations are made. As noted at paragraph 5 above, where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Here, the principal witness on whose evidence the landlord has relied and acted on in bringing this application has not been willing to attend the Tribunal to give evidence in person. This is understandable in such situations where a neighbour has been involved in physical assault and verbal abuse which the tenant has admitted. However, the only evidence from the landlord before the Tribunal is the neighbour’s written statement and the contents of the landlord’s notices.
As the tenant has accepted the essential contents of the incident giving rise to Notice 1, the Tribunal accepts that the incident occurred and that it constituted anti-social behaviour as required by section 55A RTA.
The incident in Notice 2 is more problematic. The tenant accepts that the incident occurred but denies that it was instigated by her and that it was not an appropriate response. Once neighbours have fallen out, it is common for them to engage in tit-for-tat behaviour. It becomes difficult to determine who started or who should be responsible for an incident. This can be an important consideration when the Tribunal has to determine under section 55A(3) RTA whether making a termination order would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the notices were given.
The tenant has denied the contents of Notice 3 and that the incident occurred. On the evidence before it and with the tenant’s plausible denial, the Tribunal is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant’s partner was responsible for anti-social behaviour as described in that notice.
Notice 3 is also defective in that the date, time and location of incident are insufficiently clear for the Tribunal to determine that the formal requirements under section 55A(2)(b)(ii) RTA have been met.
The landlord noted that the tenant had not taken any steps to apply to the Tribunal disputing the contents of any of the notices. This can be a relevant consideration where a tenant does not attend the hearing and so may appear to have accepted the contents of the notices. Here, the three notices were issued between 24 October and 18 November 2024, a period of just over three weeks. The landlord’s application was filed on the day of the last notice. Given that the Tribunal was to consider the notices at a hearing only 18 days after the landlord’s application was filed, there was little point in the tenant filing a separate application to dispute the contents of the last two notices. The Tribunal therefore gives no legal or evidential significance to the tenant’s failure to apply to the Tribunal to dispute the landlord’s notices.
For these reasons, the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy under section 55A RTA is dismissed. Termination for exceeding the maximum number of occupants
On 25 October 2024, the landlord gave the tenant a 14-day notice to remedy her breach of a term of the tenancy agreement that the property was to be occupied by one adult and two children. The notice claimed that “the evidence is that you have extra people that are permanently occupying the premises who must vacate.” The landlord explained that it believed the tenant’s partner was living permanently in the premises.
The landlord did not submit any evidence other than the breach letter in support of this application. The Tribunal had no evidence before it to prove that there were other permanent adults living permanently at the property.
The tenant explained that as the eldest of eight siblings she had provided temporary accommodation to members of her family. She accepted that her partner had stayed at the property on a number of occasions as her guest. As he is the father of her two children, she explained that he would continue to visit. She had asked to have him added as a tenant to the tenancy agreement but the landlord declined.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant’s partner has lived at the property permanently so that the tenant was exceeding the maximum number of adult occupants so that the tenant was in breach of her tenancy agreement and section 40(3) RTA.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed. The future
Disputes between neighbours living closely together easily escalate and can cause people to behave in ways which they later regret. The tenant appeared genuinely upset that her relationship with her neighbour had deteriorated to the extent it has after the incident involving her sister. She wants to continue living in her home with her two children and she wants the tensions and hostility between her and her neighbour to end.
The PM gave evidence that her employees have complained of aggressive and intimidating behaviour from the tenant and her partner. In considering the landlord’s application it has not been necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether such behaviour has occurred. However, the tenant needs to consider the need to repair her relationship with the PM so that she and other employees are treated with consideration and respect when they are carrying out their duties.
The tenant was well represented at the hearing by a person of standing in the community and with a willingness to help the tenant resolve matters for the future. She suggested that the tenant and the neighbour meet to determine some ground rules going forward so that they can return to a peaceful co- existence. She offered to mediate that meeting in an impartial manner and the PM offered its offices as a neutral meeting space.
This is a constructive and positive suggestion which I hope the tenant and her neighbour will welcome and use to put the past behind them so that they can continue to live in their homes without further conflict.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5074308 — Harassment at 23A Salisbury Avenue, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5074308 — Harassment at 23A Salisbury Avenue, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500

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