What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5132173 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 5132173?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5132173?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5132173?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11431034-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5132173 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 5132173?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5132173?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5132173?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11431034-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5132173 — Harassment

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name 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. The application is made pursuant to section 55A and section 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant wants the tenancy to continue. Termination for antisocial behaviour
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 is tipping urine over the neighbour’s fence, swearing at the neighbour, banging the fence to upset the chickens, banging on the fence with lawnmower from 5.30 until 10 in the morning while yelling profanities, and drawing an obscene picture and swear word in chalk on the footpath by the neighbour’s driveway.
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 note that I can end the tenancy if a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission (other than the landlord or a person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority), engages in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy. And, if a tenant is in the premises at the same time as another person the tenant is presumed to have permitted the person to be in the premises, unless the tenant proves that they took all reasonable steps to prevent the person from entering the premises or to eject the person from the premises.
The landlord’s notices are correct and the landlord has filed the application within 28 days. I accept that the behaviour the landlord describes is antisocial behaviour.
The tenant completely denies tipping urine over the fence. He said there has been swearing in his house and in the garden and that is normal behaviour. He said any swearing has not been directed at the neighbour. He said the lawn mower does sometimes bang into the fence but it is not deliberate. He denies repeatedly banging the fence, upsetting the chickens, swearing at the neighbour and drawing on the footpath. He said he has an acquaintance who has a grievance with the neighbour but that he has not allowed the acquaintance to swear at the neighbour or intimidate the neighbour. He said he has told the acquaintance to “pull his head in”.
The tenant also said he has complained to the Council about the smell from the neighbour’s chickens. He said the smell has improved since the Council went to visit the neighbour. The tenant said the police have not spoken with him about the neighbour.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord arranged for the neighbour to appear as a witness. She read a witness statement that supported the application. She said she had been in contact with the police. She was then asked to answer questions from the landlord, the tenant and myself. The neighbour became argumentative and interrupted the hearing so I had to end the phone call before all the questions could be asked.
Before the call was ended, the neighbour said she knows it is the tenant because she can see and hear him kicking the fence. She said the urine could only have come from the tenant’s property. She said the behaviour is intimidating. She denied there had been any visit from the Council about the chickens.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above. The neighbour’s evidence is not more persuasive than the tenant’s evidence. This means I cannot end the tenancy because of antisocial behaviour. This claim is dismissed. Termination for breach
The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, namely that there has been a breach of the neighbour’s quiet enjoyment. The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) RTA.
The burden of proof is the same under this section. The landlord must have the better evidence. The evidence is the same as for the anti social behaviour claim. I am not more persuaded by the evidence from the landlord and the neighbour. This claim is also dismissed. A warning
The tenant is advised that the RTA makes it clear he is responsible for the behaviour of his visitors. If his acquaintance or anyone else he has allowed on the tenancy premises – meaning his house, the garden, and any other area he is responsible for under the tenancy agreement – carries out antisocial behaviour (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor to any of his neighbours, then the Tribunal can end the tenancy.
The Tribunal will be more likely to end the tenancy if there is another Tribunal application for termination for antisocial behaviour or breach against the tenant. Other orders
I am using my discretion to suppress the name of the tenant and I will also suppress the address to protect the identity of the neighbour. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest in the management of social housing.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name 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. The application is made pursuant to section 55A and section 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant wants the tenancy to continue. Termination for antisocial behaviour
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 is tipping urine over the neighbour’s fence, swearing at the neighbour, banging the fence to upset the chickens, banging on the fence with lawnmower from 5.30 until 10 in the morning while yelling profanities, and drawing an obscene picture and swear word in chalk on the footpath by the neighbour’s driveway.
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 note that I can end the tenancy if a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission (other than the landlord or a person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority), engages in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy. And, if a tenant is in the premises at the same time as another person the tenant is presumed to have permitted the person to be in the premises, unless the tenant proves that they took all reasonable steps to prevent the person from entering the premises or to eject the person from the premises.
The landlord’s notices are correct and the landlord has filed the application within 28 days. I accept that the behaviour the landlord describes is antisocial behaviour.
The tenant completely denies tipping urine over the fence. He said there has been swearing in his house and in the garden and that is normal behaviour. He said any swearing has not been directed at the neighbour. He said the lawn mower does sometimes bang into the fence but it is not deliberate. He denies repeatedly banging the fence, upsetting the chickens, swearing at the neighbour and drawing on the footpath. He said he has an acquaintance who has a grievance with the neighbour but that he has not allowed the acquaintance to swear at the neighbour or intimidate the neighbour. He said he has told the acquaintance to “pull his head in”.
The tenant also said he has complained to the Council about the smell from the neighbour’s chickens. He said the smell has improved since the Council went to visit the neighbour. The tenant said the police have not spoken with him about the neighbour.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord arranged for the neighbour to appear as a witness. She read a witness statement that supported the application. She said she had been in contact with the police. She was then asked to answer questions from the landlord, the tenant and myself. The neighbour became argumentative and interrupted the hearing so I had to end the phone call before all the questions could be asked.
Before the call was ended, the neighbour said she knows it is the tenant because she can see and hear him kicking the fence. She said the urine could only have come from the tenant’s property. She said the behaviour is intimidating. She denied there had been any visit from the Council about the chickens.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above. The neighbour’s evidence is not more persuasive than the tenant’s evidence. This means I cannot end the tenancy because of antisocial behaviour. This claim is dismissed. Termination for breach
The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, namely that there has been a breach of the neighbour’s quiet enjoyment. The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) RTA.
The burden of proof is the same under this section. The landlord must have the better evidence. The evidence is the same as for the anti social behaviour claim. I am not more persuaded by the evidence from the landlord and the neighbour. This claim is also dismissed. A warning
The tenant is advised that the RTA makes it clear he is responsible for the behaviour of his visitors. If his acquaintance or anyone else he has allowed on the tenancy premises – meaning his house, the garden, and any other area he is responsible for under the tenancy agreement – carries out antisocial behaviour (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor to any of his neighbours, then the Tribunal can end the tenancy.
The Tribunal will be more likely to end the tenancy if there is another Tribunal application for termination for antisocial behaviour or breach against the tenant. Other orders
I am using my discretion to suppress the name of the tenant and I will also suppress the address to protect the identity of the neighbour. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest in the management of social housing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5132173 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5132173 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions