What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5097828 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5097828?

Uckland 2103 Is Terminated, And Poss…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5097828?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5097828?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11257959-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5097828 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5097828?

Uckland 2103 Is Terminated, And Poss…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5097828?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5097828?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11257959-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

10 Tokatoka Lane, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5097828 — Harassment

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5097828. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
uckland 2103 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm Sunday 29 December 2024. 3. The t	$27.00		uckland 2103 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm Sunday 29 December 2024. 3. The t

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Thomas Te Riaki at 10 Tokatoka Lane, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm Sunday 29 December 2024.
The tenant is to pay $27.00 to the landlord immediately being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
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 provided in evidence copies of the three notices issued to the tenant as follows: a. Notice 1. 4 November 2024. On 4 November 2024 the tenant was playing “loud music with heavy base”. b. Notice 2. 15 November 2024. On 15 November 2024 the tenant was playing “loud music with heavy base”. c. Notice 3. 29 November 2024. On 26 November 2024 a heated argument deteriorated into “loud and abusive behaviour”. On 27 November 2024 “Loud music started up again. The music was loud enough to vibrate the adjoining wall between the two units. Note: this is a fire-rated noise controlled wall.” A further altercation followed with a neighbour. On 28 November 2024 the tenant approached a neighbour away from the premises and “verbally abused” the neighbour for complaining about his music.
The landlord gave evidence that he had received complaints from more than one neighbour. He gave evidence that he had witnessed each incident of disturbance caused by the loud music and which was the subject of the notices. He advised that the music was so loud that he could feel the wall vibrating. Included in the landlord’s evidence were text messages from neighbours complaining about the noise and a written complaint detailing the impact the tenant’s and his guests’ behaviour was having on them.
The tenant accepted that he liked to play his music loud and explained that he was “just enjoying himself.” He did not deny that the events described in the Notices took place. He simply could not see why he could not play his music as loud as he wanted, even when it had been pointed out that this disturbed the quiet enjoyment of his neighbours. He did not appear to have concern for the impact his behaviour was having on his neighbours. 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 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 considered 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 considering 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.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5097828. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
uckland 2103 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm Sunday 29 December 2024. 3. The t	$27.00		uckland 2103 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm Sunday 29 December 2024. 3. The t

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Thomas Te Riaki at 10 Tokatoka Lane, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm Sunday 29 December 2024.
The tenant is to pay $27.00 to the landlord immediately being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
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 provided in evidence copies of the three notices issued to the tenant as follows: a. Notice 1. 4 November 2024. On 4 November 2024 the tenant was playing “loud music with heavy base”. b. Notice 2. 15 November 2024. On 15 November 2024 the tenant was playing “loud music with heavy base”. c. Notice 3. 29 November 2024. On 26 November 2024 a heated argument deteriorated into “loud and abusive behaviour”. On 27 November 2024 “Loud music started up again. The music was loud enough to vibrate the adjoining wall between the two units. Note: this is a fire-rated noise controlled wall.” A further altercation followed with a neighbour. On 28 November 2024 the tenant approached a neighbour away from the premises and “verbally abused” the neighbour for complaining about his music.
The landlord gave evidence that he had received complaints from more than one neighbour. He gave evidence that he had witnessed each incident of disturbance caused by the loud music and which was the subject of the notices. He advised that the music was so loud that he could feel the wall vibrating. Included in the landlord’s evidence were text messages from neighbours complaining about the noise and a written complaint detailing the impact the tenant’s and his guests’ behaviour was having on them.
The tenant accepted that he liked to play his music loud and explained that he was “just enjoying himself.” He did not deny that the events described in the Notices took place. He simply could not see why he could not play his music as loud as he wanted, even when it had been pointed out that this disturbed the quiet enjoyment of his neighbours. He did not appear to have concern for the impact his behaviour was having on his neighbours. 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 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 considered 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 considering 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.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5097828 — Harassment at 10 Tokatoka Lane, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5097828 — Harassment at 10 Tokatoka Lane, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions