What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5093915 about?

The tribunal order states: By 5pm 27 February 2025, the Tenant must ensure that the maximum number of

How much money was awarded in case 5093915?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093915?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093915?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11453164-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5093915 about?

The tribunal order states: By 5pm 27 February 2025, the Tenant must ensure that the maximum number of

How much money was awarded in case 5093915?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093915?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093915?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11453164-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5093915 — Harassment

Order

By 5pm 27 February 2025, the Tenant must ensure that the maximum number of occupants at the premises does not exceed the amount allowed by the tenancy agreement or otherwise agreed with the landlord.
If, after 5pm 27 February 2025, the maximum number of occupants at the premises exceeds the amount allowed by the tenancy agreement or otherwise agreed with the landlord, the tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord is a community housing provider and says that the tenant has breached his tenant obligations and the terms of the tenancy agreement and engaged in a pattern of anti-social behaviour, including by: a. harassing and intimidating the landlord and neighbours; b. disturbing the peace comfort and privacy of neighbours; c. failing to pay a security callout fee; d. parking in a shared driveway without authorisation; e. keeping a dog without the landlord’s consent; and f. allowing a second occupant in his apartment.
The tenant denies most of these allegations. He says that he has not intimidated or harassed neighbours, has not unduly disturbed the peace, comfort and privacy of the neighbours and that he thought he was authorised to park in the shared driveway.
The tenant admits keeping a dog for part of his tenancy and that a second person (the second occupant) now lives with him, but he says that these should not be grounds for termination. The issues
There are three issues that need to be determined: a. Can the landlord terminate the tenancy for anti-social behaviour? b. Has the tenant breached his tenant obligations or the terms of tenancy agreement? c. Is termination of the tenancy the appropriate outcome?

Section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) confirms that a landlord can apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating a periodic tenancy on the ground of anti-social behaviour, when: a. There have been 3 separate occasions of anti-social behaviour in connection with the premises, within 90 days; b. On each occasion the landlord has given the tenant a notice that: i.Describes the specific behaviour; and ii.Advised of the date and approximate location it occurred; and iii.Stating how many notices had been given; and iv.Advising the tenant of a right to challenge the notice in this Tribunal; and c. The landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy must be within 28 days of the third notice.
Anti-social behaviour is defined in section 55A of the RTA as being: (a) harassment; or (b) any other act or omission (whether intentional or not), if the act or omission reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor.
Applying section 55A of the RTA, the landlord can only seek to terminate this tenancy for anti-social behaviour where: a. on three separate occasions within a 90-day period, it has provided the tenant with the required notice; and b. it filed the application within 28 days of the third notice.
This application was filed on 3 December 2024. The anti-social behaviour notices served on the tenant by the landlord that fall within the timeframe required by section 55A of the RTA are the notices of: a. 5 September 2024, relating to parking on a shared driveway; b. 15 October 2024, relating to alleged violence between the tenant and his partner and alleged distress and alarm caused to neighbours; c. 25 October 2024, relating to parking on the shared driveway; and d. 3 December 2024, relating to the allegations that the Tenant’s dog barked on various days and that dog faeces were left on a neighbour’s premises.
Two of those notices related to parking on the shared driveway, which I am not satisfied was anti-social behaviour.
The apartment complex where the Tenant lives shares a driveway with other premises. There are two car parks available to the occupants of the apartment complex. The landlord says that those car parks are assigned to other occupiers and that the Tenant often parked in one of those parks or in the shared driveway, creating a nuisance.
The Tenant says that he was authorised to park in one of the two car parking spaces available to tenants at the apartment complex. He says that the vehicle he parked in those spaces had belonged to the tenant who had permission to use that car park. The Tenant says that he was in the process of purchasing the vehicle from that tenant and the tenant agreed to allow him to use that car park, in exchange for the Tenant taking him to medical appointments. The Tenant says that he was never told – either by the authorised tenant or the landlord - that the permission to use that park had been withdrawn. He agrees that he received a letter from the landlord in late August 2024 advising that he was not to use the car park, but says that no one spoke to him about this, so he thought he was still authorised to use the car park.
There is clearly a dispute between the Tenant and the landlord as to when any authority to use the car park was withdrawn. But I do not need to resolve that dispute. That is because the evidence does not show that his parking in fact created any nuisance that was more than minor.
As the applicant, the landlord bears the onus of proving its claim on the balance of probabilities. I cannot simply assume that any parking (if it was unauthorised) was a nuisance that was more than minor.
The landlord’s representative claimed nuisance, but there was no corroborative evidence, such as evidence from other occupants or driveway users or photographs or CCTV footage to demonstrate that the Tenant’s parking was in fact a more than minor nuisance. I therefore find that the landlord has not proven that the tenant’s parking amounted to anti-social behaviour.
Regarding the allegation of violence between the tenant and his partner, I am not satisfied that the evidence led by the landlord substantiates this allegation. The landlord’s representative was not present during the alleged event and no evidence was led from any witness who was. I cannot therefore be satisfied that the alleged incident occurred or that whatever did occur amounted to anti-social behaviour.
Without having to consider the presence of the dog or how dog faeces found its way to the neighbour’s property, it follows that the landlord cannot terminate this tenancy under section 55A of the RTA because it has not proven three instances of anti-social behaviour accompanied by the required notices within the required timeframe. Issue 2: Breach of tenant obligations and the tenancy agreement
Under section 56(1) of the RTA, the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach of the tenancy agreement or of the tenant’s obligations in section 40 of the RTA.
The landlord has proven, and the tenant has admitted, the following breaches: a.the tenant kept a dog on the premises without permission; and b.the tenant has allowed a second occupant to live at the premises, when the tenancy agreement allows for a maximum of one occupant.
I find that the tenant kept a dog at the premises between August 2024 and December 2024. He says that he only kept the dog for about six weeks until December 2024, but I accept the landlord representative’s evidence that she saw and heard the dog as early as August 2024. This is a breach of the tenancy agreement, which provides that only small pets can be kept, but only with the permission of the landlord. No permission was provided.
I also find that the second occupant has lived in the premises since at least late December 2024. That was the tenant’s evidence. The landlord alleges that the second occupant has lived there for much longer, but the evidence does not establish that on the balance of probabilities. That is because there is evidence to show that the same person also visited and stayed at other apartments in the complex earlier in 2024, so I cannot be satisfied that she was living with the tenant before late December 2024.
The presence of the second occupant since late December 2024 is a breach of the tenancy agreement and is a breach of the tenant’s obligation under section 40(3) of the RTA to ensure that the maximum number of occupants specified in the tenancy agreement is not exceeded.
The landlord has not proven the other alleged breaches. I accept that the tenant may be blunt and prone to swear – as was demonstrated at times during the hearing – but I am not satisfied that the evidence presented demonstrates unreasonable harassment or intimidation of neighbours or conduct that would unreasonably disturb the peace, comfort, and privacy of neighbours.
There was no evidence at all from the neighbours, either orally or in written form, so I cannot find that they were harassed or intimidated or otherwise adversely impacted. There was evidence from the landlord’s representative relating to the alleged behaviour towards neighbours, but again she did not appear to have been present during any of the alleged events, so I cannot rely on her evidence as proof that the alleged conduct occurred.
The landlord did lead evidence about the alleged harassment and intimidation of the landlord. The landlord’s representative claimed that on occasions in March and April 2024 the tenant approached her aggressively and in an agitated manner and was angry and abusive.
There was no actual assault or threat of assault and although I acknowledge that the landlord’s representative was alarmed, I am not satisfied that the tenant’s conduct amounted to any breach of his obligations or any breach of the provisions of the RTA.
I also note that, even if the conduct towards the landlord was a breach, the landlord served a 14-day breach notice on the tenant on 5 April 2024 requiring him to remedy that conduct. The landlord has not proven that the tenant has since harassed or intimidated the landlord, so it is arguable that any breach (if one had occurred) has now been remedied.
Finally, regarding the allegation that the tenant has failed to pay a fee for a security guard call out, I note that this is not a breach of any of his obligations under the RTA or the tenancy agreement as neither contains any such obligation. Issue 3: Is termination of the tenancy appropriate?
As set out about, the landlord has proven two breaches – keeping a dog and allowing a second occupant.
Where the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement or any of the obligations under the RTA, the Tribunal may terminate the tenancy where the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the Court set out a range of factors that should be considered when applying section 56(1)(c) of the RTA. These factors are:
The history of the tenancy.
Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings.
Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future.
Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed.
The conduct of the landlord.
The gravity of the breach.
Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The dog is no longer at the premises. Despite the length of this breach, I am satisfied that termination, for what is a relatively minor breach of the tenancy agreement, would be a disproportionate response.
The second occupant remains, in continued breach of the tenant’s obligations in the tenancy agreement and section 40(3) of the RTA. This breach is deliberate. The tenant knows that the tenancy agreement allows only one occupant, and that the landlord has not authorised a second occupant. Despite the landlord’s repeated requests to remove the second occupant – including by way of 14-day breach notices - the tenant has not complied.
The landlord’s wish to limit the number of occupants is reasonable. Community housing providers such as the landlord have good reasons for wanting to limit the numbers of tenants in their premises – including to prevent overcrowding and excessive wear and tear of the premises. I also accept the landlord’s evidence that it has tried to assist the second occupant into other accommodation, but the second occupant has not engaged.
I therefore consider that termination is a proportionate response to this deliberate and ongoing breach of the tenant’s obligations. However, under section 78(3) of the RTA, any order I make may be subject to such conditions (whether as to the time for, or mode of compliance, or otherwise) as I see fit.
At the end of the hearing, the parties indicated a desire to sit down and discuss the situation with each other. That leads me to the view that this tenancy can be rescued. I therefore make the termination order conditional. That condition is that the tenancy shall not terminate if, by 5pm 27 February 2025, the tenant ensures that the maximum number of occupants at the premises does not exceed the amount allowed by the tenancy agreement or as otherwise agreed with the landlord. This means that the second occupant will have to move out or the landlord will need to agree to allow a second occupant at the premises.
If, after 5pm 27 February 2025, the maximum number of occupants at the premises exceeds the amount allowed by the tenancy agreement or otherwise agreed with the landlord, the tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.
The landlord has requested name suppression. Because it has been largely successful in its claim, I order accordingly. Given the unproven allegations of violence made against the Tenant, and that he has successfully defended several of the allegations made by the landlord, I also suppress the Tenant’s name and the tenancy address.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093915 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093915 — Harassment

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

Can the landlord terminate the tenancy for anti-social behaviour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Can the landlord terminate the tenancy for anti-social behaviour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions