How much money was awarded in case 5080177?

Possession Is Granted To [The Landlo…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080177?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080177?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11341955-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5080177?

Possession Is Granted To [The Landlo…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080177?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080177?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11341955-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5080177 — 14-day notice

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5080177 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5080177. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Wednesday 19 February 2025. 3. [The tenant/s] are to pay	$27.00		possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Wednesday 19 February 2025. 3. [The tenant/s] are to pay

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and the Tenants’ name and identifying details name and identifying details.

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Wednesday 19 February 2025.

[The tenant/s] are to pay $27.00 to [The landlord/s] immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A sign language interpreter also attended to assist the tenants, particularly the female tenant.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of: a) anti-social behaviour from the tenants or someone on the premises with the tenants’ permission, and b) the tenants exceeding the number of people allowed to live at the premises

The tenancy premises is a 3 bedroomed house with 1 bathroom and a single living room. The tenancy commenced on 11 November 2018 and is a periodic tenancy.

Subject to certain considerations, under section 55A of the Residential Tenancy 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.

The RTA confirms in s 55A(7) that anti-social behaviour means harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.

If the anti-social behaviour relates to behaviour from a person at the premises at the same time the tenant is at the premises, then the tenant is presumed to have permitted the person to be there unless the tenant proves they took all reasonable steps to prevent the person from entering or to eject the person from the premises (s 55A(5)).

Section 55A(4) requires the Tribunal must not take into consideration the impact on the tenant in making an order terminating the tenancy.

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour consists of ongoing loud, abusive arguing between the female tenant’s daughter and her partner, which occurs inside and outside of the house. [The tenant’s daughter] has also yelled abusive and intimidating language directed at the male tenant, who is her mother’s partner. The landlord says the yelling and abuse can be heard a distance away and that they have received many complaints and notification of the anti-social behaviours from neighbours of the premises, including but not limited to, the landlord/owner and members of the property manager’s staff.

The tenants confirmed that the female tenant’s daughter, moved in with her two children in around the end of May 2024 after the house she had been renting burned down. [The tenant’s daughter]’s partner, [The tenant’s daughter’s partner], at times also stayed in the house. The tenants’ evidence is that they often yelled and argued with each other. The male tenant confirmed that [The tenant’s daughter] also often yelled at him and that, regardless of who she was yelling at, freely swore and used abusive, intimidating words.

The male tenant trespassed both [The tenant’s daughter] and [The tenant’s daughter’s partner] in August 2024 and the Police also trespassed them both separately on 12 September 2024. However they both continued to come to and stay at the property; [The tenant’s daughter] living there fairly consistently while [The tenant’s daughter’s partner] stayed on a more random basis. The female tenant allowed her daughter to return after each of the trespass notices were served; particularly as she was concerned for the wellbeing of her grandchildren.

The landlord states in the three notices that [The tenant’s daughter] (the female tenant’s daughter) and her partner [The tenant’s daughter’s partner] have engaged in the anti-social behaviour described in the notices as: i.Notice 1: On 17 September 2024 at approximately 6.30pm there was “yelling abuse” and “loud aggressive behaviour” that could be heard within a minimum of a 200 meter radius” lasting approximately 15 minutes ii.Notice 2: On 20 September 2024 at around 8.30am there was “arguing” and “intimidating behaviour” iii.Notice 3: On 25 October 2024 at 3.30pm “[The tenant’s daughter] was seen arguing and heard screaming at both the trespassed [The tenant’s daughter’s partner] and the [male tenant]”. The Police attended during this incident Notice 3 also records that on 26 October 2024 at around 8.15pm [The tenant’s daughter] “was seen arguing and using inappropriate language at the trespassed [The tenant’s daughter’s partner.]“

The tenants accept that all of the above incidents occurred. The male tenant was at the premises for all of the incidents except for 20 September. The female tenant was there for that incident and explained what had happened to him on his return.

There is no corroborating evidence from any other neighbours or witnesses, except a statement from a neighbour whose name has been redacted. However based on the tenants’ evidence accepting the notices described correctly what had happened and that the behaviour was loud and unacceptable on all occasions, I have no doubt that anti-social behaviour occurred by person/s on the premises with the permission of the tenants. That is, I am satisfied that: a) the behaviour reached the level of “significant alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor” and b) at least [The tenant’s daughter] was there with her mother’s consent.

In making those findings, I am satisfied that the male tenant has told [The tenant’s daughter] she is not to be there. However I am equally satisfied that the female tenant has allowed her to return which then has effectively nullified the trespass notices. Therefore I am not persuaded that the tenants have taken all reasonable steps to prevent the daughter from being at the premises.

Section 55A provides for strict processes that a landlord needs to follow when giving notices for anti-social behaviour that may lead to termination. I find the notices meet the requirements of Act. In making this finding I note that at the hearing I raised that not all notices specified the duration of the behaviour. However on reviewing the wording of section 55A, I am satisfied that the requirement is to record the approximate time the behaviour occurred rather than the duration of the behaviour.

All notices were issued within 90 days and there are at least three occasions where persons at the premises with the permission of the tenant have engaged in anti-social behaviour. The application was made within 28 days of the third notice being given.

I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances the behaviour arose and the notices were given. The landlord has not acted in a retaliatory way in giving the notices and the behaviour has continued. After the incident on 26 October recorded in Notice 3, a further three anti-social notices have been issued to the tenants for the same behaviours as the notices this application is based on.

Accordingly I find the landlord has met the threshold required under section 55A and the tenancy is terminated for anti-social behaviour. Termination for the tenants exceeding the maximum number of people allowable in the premises.

Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenants’ responsibilities and confirms at section 40(3) that where the tenancy agreement specifies a maximum number of persons may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant shall ensure than no more than that number ordinarily reside in the premises at any time during the tenancy.

In this case the tenancy agreement sets out that the maximum number of persons that can live at the premises are 2 adults and 1 child. Having considered all of the evidence I am satisfied that the tenants have allowed more than the maximum number to live at the premises. They have agreed to the female tenant’s daughter and 2 children living there. The daughter’s partner from time to time has also resided there.

As set out above while both the daughter and her partner have been trespassed from the premises by the tenants and the Police, the daughter has been invited to return by the female tenant. The reason for this primarily is the female tenant’s concern for the wellbeing of her mokopuna. The daughter from time to time goes to live with other family and/or friends. However she continually and consistently returns to the premises, and does not always take her children with her but often leaves them with their grandmother. In my view the evidence establishes that this is in keeping with the daughter considering the premises is where she resides.

As set out above I accept that some efforts have been made to ensure the daughter is not at the premises, however the actions of the two tenants are not consistent in that regard as the daughter has been invited to return.

Under section 56, RTA 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.

Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so. In this instance the extra persons have continued to live at the premises after the expiry of the 14 day notice.

The District Court in Huff v City Central Property Management 1 set out factors that are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy under s 56: a) The history of the tenancy b) Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings c) Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future d) Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed e) The conduct of the landlord f)The gravity of the breach g) Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach

The tenants have breached their obligations under section 40(3) on a continuing basis since the end of May 2024. I acknowledge that the tenants have openly 1 [2020 ]NZDC 19229 at [61] informed the property manager about the presence of the daughter and her children. The landlord has advised the tenants repeatedly that the daughter and her children cannot stay and is concerned at the effect the extra persons living in the premises will have on the wear and tear on the property.

After balancing all of the above factors I find it would be inequitable or unfair not to terminate the tenancy. Conclusion

For the reasons set out above the tenancy is terminated.

The property manager advised that the landlord/owner is willing to give the tenants a month to vacate the premises. I have terminated the tenancy in accordance with this request. Other orders

As the landlord has been successful in her claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

After considering the public interest and the application the Tribunal on its own initiative orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties and other occupants referred to in the decision.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5080177. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Wednesday 19 February 2025. 3. [The tenant/s] are to pay	$27.00		possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Wednesday 19 February 2025. 3. [The tenant/s] are to pay

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and the Tenants’ name and identifying details name and identifying details.

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Wednesday 19 February 2025.

[The tenant/s] are to pay $27.00 to [The landlord/s] immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A sign language interpreter also attended to assist the tenants, particularly the female tenant.

The tenancy premises is a 3 bedroomed house with 1 bathroom and a single living room. The tenancy commenced on 11 November 2018 and is a periodic tenancy.

The RTA confirms in s 55A(7) that anti-social behaviour means harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.

Section 55A(4) requires the Tribunal must not take into consideration the impact on the tenant in making an order terminating the tenancy.

Under section 56, RTA 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.

After balancing all of the above factors I find it would be inequitable or unfair not to terminate the tenancy. Conclusion

For the reasons set out above the tenancy is terminated.

The property manager advised that the landlord/owner is willing to give the tenants a month to vacate the premises. I have terminated the tenancy in accordance with this request. Other orders

As the landlord has been successful in her claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080177 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080177 — 14-day notice

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

At a glance

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for anti-social behaviour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for anti-social behaviour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions