What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5101508 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Doctor Hemi Karena Cullen at Room 4, 151 Queen Street West,

How much money was awarded in case 5101508?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5101508?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5101508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11313503-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5101508 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Doctor Hemi Karena Cullen at Room 4, 151 Queen Street West,

How much money was awarded in case 5101508?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5101508?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5101508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11313503-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 4, 151 Queen Street West, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5101508 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Doctor Hemi Karena Cullen at Room 4, 151 Queen Street West, Levin, Levin 5510 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm Monday 27 January 2025.
An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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. See section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the landlord’s claim, 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.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding the landlord’s claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
While this decision has 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, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
Section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the parties’ applications with this requirement in mind. The evidence
The landlord issued three notices to the tenant as follows: a. Notice 1: Issued 9 September 2024 regarding an incident at 11.19 am on 8 September 2024: “Guest visited very loud, abusive and threatening language. This caused a huge disturbance to surrounding neighbours, who were very concerned for safety.” b. Notice 2: Issued 9 September 2024 regarding an incident that morning at
04 am: “Police armed defenders visited, loud yelling, huge disturbance for neighbours, very scared people, that don’t feel safe. The [tenant] was arrested.” c. Notice 3: Issued 6 December 2024 regarding an incident at 2.57 pm on 6 December 2024: “Guest arriving, very loud, bad language, violent. Police called... Very disturbing, surrounding neighbours concerned and worried for safety.”
The tenant from the neighbouring house gave evidence in person and in emails to the landlord: a. The incident in Notice 1 was a domestic dispute between the tenant and his partner. It involved “a lot of yelling and swearing” and was very disturbing to the tenant and her young child. She played a portion of a video of the incident which showed the aggressive, loud and angry nature of the incident and the language involved. b. The incident in Notice 2 was especially frightening for the witness and, she explained, for the surrounding neighbours. It involved the Armed Offenders Squad (“AOS”) surrounding the property and a loud altercation between the tenant and the armed police. The witness advised that she understood that the AOS had been called because the tenant had “slashed at his partner with a knife”. c. The incident in Notice 3 involved “a whole lot of yelling”, items being thrown around, the tenant’s partner screaming for help. The argument escalated into physical fighting and the tenant’s partner barricading herself in her room. The witness tried to intervene to calm the tenant down but was intimidated by her aggressive behaviour and locked herself in her room out of fear. This incident lasted more than half an hour. The witness had video evidence of this incident and a small portion was viewed which showed the level of aggression, swearing and anger involved. d. She had sat down and explained to the tenant the effect of his behaviour on herself and the other neighbours. She has found it difficult to complain to the landlord but believes it is untenable to live in her home while the tenant and his partner continue their loud and aggressive behaviour. The impact on her, her partner and her child of these incidents was very frightening and disturbing. “There have been times when we have had to leave the house due to them fighting each other because it was scaring our son to the point where he didn’t want to sleep at all even with us in our bed.”
The tenant gave the following evidence: a. He initially denied any knowledge of the first incident and claimed that he was at the property on that date and time. Upon hearing the witness’ evidence and her video of the incident, he readily accepted that it occurred and the description was accurate. b. He denied that the AOS call-out was related to the incident in Notice 1 or that he had drawn a knife on his partner. He explained that while he had been arrested, he was released with no charges being laid. c. He accepted the witness’ evidence regarding the incident in Notice 3. Discussion and decision
Subject to the proviso in section 55A(3) 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 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 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 incidents caused understandable, significant alarm and distress to the witness. Both the witness and the landlord had made the tenant aware of the impact of his behaviour on his neighbours and yet a further instance of the behaviour occurred and a third Notice had to be issued.
The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the RTA 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 taking into account 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.

Order

The tenancy of Doctor Hemi Karena Cullen at Room 4, 151 Queen Street West, Levin, Levin 5510 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm Monday 27 January 2025.
An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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. See section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the landlord’s claim, 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.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding the landlord’s claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
While this decision has 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, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
Section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the parties’ applications with this requirement in mind. The evidence
The landlord issued three notices to the tenant as follows: a. Notice 1: Issued 9 September 2024 regarding an incident at 11.19 am on 8 September 2024: “Guest visited very loud, abusive and threatening language. This caused a huge disturbance to surrounding neighbours, who were very concerned for safety.” b. Notice 2: Issued 9 September 2024 regarding an incident that morning at
04 am: “Police armed defenders visited, loud yelling, huge disturbance for neighbours, very scared people, that don’t feel safe. The [tenant] was arrested.” c. Notice 3: Issued 6 December 2024 regarding an incident at 2.57 pm on 6 December 2024: “Guest arriving, very loud, bad language, violent. Police called... Very disturbing, surrounding neighbours concerned and worried for safety.”
The tenant from the neighbouring house gave evidence in person and in emails to the landlord: a. The incident in Notice 1 was a domestic dispute between the tenant and his partner. It involved “a lot of yelling and swearing” and was very disturbing to the tenant and her young child. She played a portion of a video of the incident which showed the aggressive, loud and angry nature of the incident and the language involved. b. The incident in Notice 2 was especially frightening for the witness and, she explained, for the surrounding neighbours. It involved the Armed Offenders Squad (“AOS”) surrounding the property and a loud altercation between the tenant and the armed police. The witness advised that she understood that the AOS had been called because the tenant had “slashed at his partner with a knife”. c. The incident in Notice 3 involved “a whole lot of yelling”, items being thrown around, the tenant’s partner screaming for help. The argument escalated into physical fighting and the tenant’s partner barricading herself in her room. The witness tried to intervene to calm the tenant down but was intimidated by her aggressive behaviour and locked herself in her room out of fear. This incident lasted more than half an hour. The witness had video evidence of this incident and a small portion was viewed which showed the level of aggression, swearing and anger involved. d. She had sat down and explained to the tenant the effect of his behaviour on herself and the other neighbours. She has found it difficult to complain to the landlord but believes it is untenable to live in her home while the tenant and his partner continue their loud and aggressive behaviour. The impact on her, her partner and her child of these incidents was very frightening and disturbing. “There have been times when we have had to leave the house due to them fighting each other because it was scaring our son to the point where he didn’t want to sleep at all even with us in our bed.”
The tenant gave the following evidence: a. He initially denied any knowledge of the first incident and claimed that he was at the property on that date and time. Upon hearing the witness’ evidence and her video of the incident, he readily accepted that it occurred and the description was accurate. b. He denied that the AOS call-out was related to the incident in Notice 1 or that he had drawn a knife on his partner. He explained that while he had been arrested, he was released with no charges being laid. c. He accepted the witness’ evidence regarding the incident in Notice 3. Discussion and decision
Subject to the proviso in section 55A(3) 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 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 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 incidents caused understandable, significant alarm and distress to the witness. Both the witness and the landlord had made the tenant aware of the impact of his behaviour on his neighbours and yet a further instance of the behaviour occurred and a third Notice had to be issued.
The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the RTA 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 taking into account 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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5101508 — Harassment at Room 4, 151 Queen Street West, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5101508 — Harassment at Room 4, 151 Queen Street West, Levin, Levin 5510

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