What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5118515 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5118515?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118515?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118515?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11360564-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5118515 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5118515?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118515?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118515?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11360564-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

19 Peara Lane, Karaka, Papakura 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5118515 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord has received numerous complaints from neighbours of the tenant which describes these forms of anti-social behaviour: a. Loud music at night b. Noisy parties at night c. Menacing dogs roaming outside the property d. Dirt bikes being operated on during the day e. Untidy keeping of rubbish f. People coming to the property late at night g. Cars parked outside the property late at night h. Closing of wardrobe doors loudly i. Dirt bikes going around the paddock
The landlord wants the disturbances complained to stop or the tenancy terminated.
The starting point on an application under section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) based on anti-social behaviour is that a landlord may only invoke the provision if the parties are on a periodic tenancy.
In this case, the parties are on a fixed term tenancy and therefore there is no jurisdiction for the landlord to invoke section 55A RTA to terminate the tenancy.
For that reason alone, this application for termination by the landlord must fail.
In any event, I do not consider that the accusations made against the tenant and their guests have been properly founded.
The landlord’s property manager has attended to the property outside at night on 3 separate occasions. While parked on the road outside the premises, the property manager has not observed any anti-social behaviour or disturbances coming from the premises. He also did not personally observe any unreasonable interference which might impact on the peace and comfort of persons residing in the neighbourhood.
To that end, section 40(2)(c) RTA states that tenants shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of persons residing in the neighbourhood.
The test under section 40(2)(c) RTA is objective, not subjective. The interference to peace, comfort and privacy of persons residing in the neighbourhood only becomes an issue if it is unreasonable. Not every instance of interference (or what the neighbour considers to be an interference) is a breach of section 40(2)(c) RTA. It is only a breach if the interference impacts the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of persons residing in the neighbourhood.
It is worth remembering that the tenant and their family are themselves entitled to peace, comfort and quiet enjoyment of the premises. This includes being able to have the occasional late-night parties on special occasions such as New Year’s eve. If the noise level on those occasions is deemed too loud or too late into the night and therefore “unreasonable”, the neighbours can complain to Council’s Noise Control who will use a device to measure noise decibels to gauge whether the noise levels standard has been exceeded, on an objective scale. The property manager stated that none of the neighbour’s referrals to Noise Control resulted in any action or warnings issued to the tenant. So, no objective level of noise has been breached by the tenant.
In exercise of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of their property, the tenant is allowed to have guests over to their place at any time of the day or night. The tenant can also have their guests and visitors park their cars outside their house at any hour of the day or night.
The landlord’s property manager confirm that the tenant no longer keeps any dogs on the property. The tenant says that her son has since sold his dirt bike and no longer operates a dirt bike in the neighbourhood.
I have viewed and listened to the video recordings and photographs adduced by the landlord in support of the application.
I have no basis to conclude that the tenant has engaged in anti-social behaviour nor has the tenant caused or permitted interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of persons residing in the neighbourhood.
It appears to me that the neighbours levelling the aforesaid complaints against the tenant to the landlord’s property manager are either unusually sensitive or particularly susceptible to noise or discomfort or they personally dislike the tenant.
In the upshot, the landlord’s claims and accusations filed against the tenant have not been substantiated.
I therefore dismiss the landlord’s claim accordingly.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.

The landlord has received numerous complaints from neighbours of the tenant which describes these forms of anti-social behaviour: a. Loud music at night b. Noisy parties at night c. Menacing dogs roaming outside the property d. Dirt bikes being operated on during the day e. Untidy keeping of rubbish f. People coming to the property late at night g. Cars parked outside the property late at night h. Closing of wardrobe doors loudly i. Dirt bikes going around the paddock

The landlord wants the disturbances complained to stop or the tenancy terminated.

The starting point on an application under section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) based on anti-social behaviour is that a landlord may only invoke the provision if the parties are on a periodic tenancy.

In this case, the parties are on a fixed term tenancy and therefore there is no jurisdiction for the landlord to invoke section 55A RTA to terminate the tenancy.

For that reason alone, this application for termination by the landlord must fail.

In any event, I do not consider that the accusations made against the tenant and their guests have been properly founded.

The landlord’s property manager has attended to the property outside at night on 3 separate occasions. While parked on the road outside the premises, the property manager has not observed any anti-social behaviour or disturbances coming from the premises. He also did not personally observe any unreasonable interference which might impact on the peace and comfort of persons residing in the neighbourhood.

To that end, section 40(2)(c) RTA states that tenants shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of persons residing in the neighbourhood.

The test under section 40(2)(c) RTA is objective, not subjective. The interference to peace, comfort and privacy of persons residing in the neighbourhood only becomes an issue if it is unreasonable. Not every instance of interference (or what the neighbour considers to be an interference) is a breach of section 40(2)(c) RTA. It is only a breach if the interference impacts the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of persons residing in the neighbourhood.

It is worth remembering that the tenant and their family are themselves entitled to peace, comfort and quiet enjoyment of the premises. This includes being able to have the occasional late-night parties on special occasions such as New Year’s eve. If the noise level on those occasions is deemed too loud or too late into the night and therefore “unreasonable”, the neighbours can complain to Council’s Noise Control who will use a device to measure noise decibels to gauge whether the noise levels standard has been exceeded, on an objective scale. The property manager stated that none of the neighbour’s referrals to Noise Control resulted in any action or warnings issued to the tenant. So, no objective level of noise has been breached by the tenant.

In exercise of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of their property, the tenant is allowed to have guests over to their place at any time of the day or night. The tenant can also have their guests and visitors park their cars outside their house at any hour of the day or night.

The landlord’s property manager confirm that the tenant no longer keeps any dogs on the property. The tenant says that her son has since sold his dirt bike and no longer operates a dirt bike in the neighbourhood.

I have viewed and listened to the video recordings and photographs adduced by the landlord in support of the application.

I have no basis to conclude that the tenant has engaged in anti-social behaviour nor has the tenant caused or permitted interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of persons residing in the neighbourhood.

It appears to me that the neighbours levelling the aforesaid complaints against the tenant to the landlord’s property manager are either unusually sensitive or particularly susceptible to noise or discomfort or they personally dislike the tenant.

In the upshot, the landlord’s claims and accusations filed against the tenant have not been substantiated.

I therefore dismiss the landlord’s claim accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118515 — Tenancy dispute at 19 Peara Lane, Karaka, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118515 — Tenancy dispute at 19 Peara Lane, Karaka, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions