What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5092628 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5092628?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5092628?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5092628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11253109-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5092628 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5092628?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5092628?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5092628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11253109-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

54 State Highway 3, Turakina, Marton 4581 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5092628 — Harassment

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote hearing on 23 December 2024.
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; o On 25 September 2024, the tenants arguing with each other and one tenant striking the other. o On 12 November 2024, the tenants arguing and pushing each other. o On 26 November 2024, the tenants arguing with each other and one tenant striking the other.
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 failed to establish 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 valid 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 RTA defines what is anti-social behaviour and provides for strict processes that should be followed by the landlord when giving notices for anti-social behaviour that may lead to termination.
The landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant or persons permitted by her to be at the premises have committed antisocial behaviours.
There was a lack of evidence of what the behaviour was. The landlord tells me this is because the neighbours who witnessed the activity are concerned of what may happen with their tenancy. 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 on the witnesses credibility. This is particularly relevant in a case of this nature where a tenant gives evidence that the alleged violence did not occur. The tenant evidence was that no police charges have been made against the other tenant.
I accept that the tenants were arguing on the occasions mentioned. Voices were no doubt raised in the heat of the moment. What I do not have is sufficient evidence that the arguments may have reasonably caused alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor to the neighbours.
Where a neighbour is 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, and also be aware that the landlord has the burden of proof 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 application is accordingly dismissed.
I record that any evidence which had not been received by the Tribunal prior to the hearing has not been considered in coming to this decision. The parties were advised of this at the hearing.
As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter, no order is made with regards to the filing fee.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote hearing on 23 December 2024.
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; o On 25 September 2024, the tenants arguing with each other and one tenant striking the other. o On 12 November 2024, the tenants arguing and pushing each other. o On 26 November 2024, the tenants arguing with each other and one tenant striking the other.
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 failed to establish 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 valid 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 RTA defines what is anti-social behaviour and provides for strict processes that should be followed by the landlord when giving notices for anti-social behaviour that may lead to termination.
The landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant or persons permitted by her to be at the premises have committed antisocial behaviours.
There was a lack of evidence of what the behaviour was. The landlord tells me this is because the neighbours who witnessed the activity are concerned of what may happen with their tenancy. 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 on the witnesses credibility. This is particularly relevant in a case of this nature where a tenant gives evidence that the alleged violence did not occur. The tenant evidence was that no police charges have been made against the other tenant.
I accept that the tenants were arguing on the occasions mentioned. Voices were no doubt raised in the heat of the moment. What I do not have is sufficient evidence that the arguments may have reasonably caused alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor to the neighbours.
Where a neighbour is 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, and also be aware that the landlord has the burden of proof 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 application is accordingly dismissed.
I record that any evidence which had not been received by the Tribunal prior to the hearing has not been considered in coming to this decision. The parties were advised of this at the hearing.
As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter, no order is made with regards to the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5092628 — Harassment at 54 State Highway 3, Turakina, Marton 4581

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5092628 — Harassment at 54 State Highway 3, Turakina, Marton 4581

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions