What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5105288 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 5105288?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5105288?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5105288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11310324-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5105288 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 5105288?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5105288?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5105288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11310324-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5105288 — Harassment

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

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.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is primarily excessive noise during unsociable hours, from the premises as well as vehicles at the premises. The first notice expanded on the noise to include a police visit and the subsequent arrest of other persons at that address due to a stolen car at the premises.
The notices were served on 7, 14 and 27 November 2024.
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 and in the notices. There is no supporting evidence of any claimed breaches, and the tenant denies the breaches as stated. He was open that there have been at least one occasion when noise control attended but he claims the conclusion of the officer was that the noise did not exceed the prescribed levels.
I have determined that the landlord has not established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy as recounted in all three notices. 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 but beyond the notices, raised in good faith by the landlord based on third-party complaints, there is no evidence to substantiate the claims. Typically, sound and/or video recordings, photos and agency reports from police or noise control evidence such complaints.
I am not satisfied the three notices served in November 2024 are sufficiently proven to justify termination. The tenant engaged in the hearing and was open about historic events. Both parties are better now informed on the evidential requirements, and the tenant right to challenge any future notice – if merited.
This dismissal does not prevent future such notices, nor any application to the Tribunal as deemed necessary by either party. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application.
Given the dismissal, suppression is not automatically available to the landlord.
Having consideration of the background and submissions by both parties, I exercise my initiative and order suppression of all details. Given the likely desire of the landlord to provide feedback from this order to interested parties, the landlord may share relevant parts of the reasons in this order with them as necessary but the identifying details in the first page intituling (location, names, and address) should not be made available. A public order that suppresses the details will be published to the Tribunal orders database at a later date.
This suppression order pertains to this application and order only. Any future application and any request for suppression will be decided at that time.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

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.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is primarily excessive noise during unsociable hours, from the premises as well as vehicles at the premises. The first notice expanded on the noise to include a police visit and the subsequent arrest of other persons at that address due to a stolen car at the premises.
The notices were served on 7, 14 and 27 November 2024.
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 and in the notices. There is no supporting evidence of any claimed breaches, and the tenant denies the breaches as stated. He was open that there have been at least one occasion when noise control attended but he claims the conclusion of the officer was that the noise did not exceed the prescribed levels.
I have determined that the landlord has not established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy as recounted in all three notices. 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 but beyond the notices, raised in good faith by the landlord based on third-party complaints, there is no evidence to substantiate the claims. Typically, sound and/or video recordings, photos and agency reports from police or noise control evidence such complaints.
I am not satisfied the three notices served in November 2024 are sufficiently proven to justify termination. The tenant engaged in the hearing and was open about historic events. Both parties are better now informed on the evidential requirements, and the tenant right to challenge any future notice – if merited.
This dismissal does not prevent future such notices, nor any application to the Tribunal as deemed necessary by either party. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application.
Given the dismissal, suppression is not automatically available to the landlord.
Having consideration of the background and submissions by both parties, I exercise my initiative and order suppression of all details. Given the likely desire of the landlord to provide feedback from this order to interested parties, the landlord may share relevant parts of the reasons in this order with them as necessary but the identifying details in the first page intituling (location, names, and address) should not be made available. A public order that suppresses the details will be published to the Tribunal orders database at a later date.
This suppression order pertains to this application and order only. Any future application and any request for suppression will be decided at that time.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5105288 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5105288 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions