What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5114348 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name.

How much money was awarded in case 5114348?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5114348?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5114348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11367916-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5114348 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name.

How much money was awarded in case 5114348?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5114348?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5114348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11367916-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Pattie Place, Springlands, Blenheim 7201 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5114348 — Harassment

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 4 Pattie Place, Springlands, Blenheim 7201 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 5pm Sunday 16 February 2025.

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.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour has been an ongoing issue.
By way of background, a prior landlord application for termination of this tenancy, citing sections 55(1)(c) and 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) was heard last year. That application related primarily to claims of threats to a neighbour rather than specific landlord experiences. However, part of that order (tenant name suppression was ordered) noted the following; of some relevance to this subsequent application:
The landlord provided evidence of numerous telephone calls by the tenant to the landlord’s call centre. Three recorded examples of the calls were played for the Tribunal. During the calls, the tenant is abusive and offensive to the staff. The staff taking the calls are to be commended, as they have at all times remained calm and retained a professional demeanour.
The tenant accepted that his behaviour during the telephone calls was inexcusable. He showed a substantial degree of insight and understanding on this issue. He said by way of background, but not by way of excuse, that he had been frustrated. He had attempted to obtain assistance from his landlord on numerous occasions over an extended period of time without success. On a positive note, the tenant explained that he now had a contact within the landlord’s organisation with whom he had a positive relationship.
The adjudicator in that order decided, “by a very fine margin, I consider that it would not be inequitable to refuse to terminate this tenancy and the application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed”.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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.
The first 55A notice was issued 13 November 2024 in response to an incident on 10 November 2024, and prior events, where during calls to the landlord’s Customer Service Centre the tenant harassed the call takers by using abusive and offensive language.
The second 55A notice was issued 9 December 2024 in response to an incident on 6 December 2024 when the tenant emailed a local manager of the landlord and harassed her in writing by using extremely offensive language.
The third 55A notice was issued on 16 December 2024 regarding a further email to the same person, again using offensive language.
Recordings of multiple calls were made available. The tenant emails referred to in the above notices were also made available. The tenant accepted these as a true reflection of the calls or emails as provided.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above. I also note the volume of inbound call traffic from the tenant; claimed by the landlord to be over 100 calls since this application was lodged. The maximum number of calls received in one day was stated as 18. The number of calls before the application were said to exceed that volume since.
The previous adjudicator commended the staff receiving the calls on their “professional demeanour” on the calls presented as evidence at that time. I concur with that assessment after listening to the later messages as provided to me. However, such call handling appears to come at a cost. While some robustness of the staff might be expected, given the role, it is concerning that the landlord advised 18 separate Health and Safety incidents (an internal H&S support process) have been raised by impacted staff due to calls from this tenant. The emails to the local manager will have been equally disturbing when received.
In considering both the repetition and nature of the tenant communication, I find it to be more than minor.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on, or with regard to, the premises by the tenant. 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 taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given. While most calls are to remote staff at a call centre, they operate as part of the landlord and in connection with this tenancy. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
The tenancy is terminated.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy (see s 55A(4) RTA). I note the tenant spoke of a number of social challenges he faces, in part due to his historic traumas, that trigger such anti- social behaviours. He stated many previous attempts to change this have failed. While this application, appropriately, considers the behavioural impacts of the tenant on the landlord, the tenant challenges are not ignored, rather, the continuation of the tenancy cannot be justified on those challenges and the subsequent anti-social behaviours. More so as the tenant acknowledged at the hearing his view that his “behaviours won’t change”.
While an end to this tenancy is not desired by the tenant, it is hoped the change, in conjunction with some of the other changes the tenant is considering, will lead to a more positive future environment for him. Waimarie pai (good luck) with that.
This has been a long tenancy and the termination date has been set to reflect the realities for the tenant in exiting the premises. It is hoped both parties work to ensure a smooth transition. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states 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 prior order referenced in this order granted tenant name suppression. That was appropriate given the dismissal.
The outcome of this order is different. Typically, such orders for termination would not include suppression due to justified public interest. However, I am concerned that not continuing tenant name suppression may breach his entitlement as established in the first order. Given the previous dismissal, it would be unfair on the tenant for that order to be easily linked to this. By a fine margin I conclude in this instance the tenant interest outweighs the public interest and I exercise my discretion to order tenant name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5114348 — Harassment at 4 Pattie Place, Springlands, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5114348 — Harassment at 4 Pattie Place, Springlands, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions