What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5151391 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5151391?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5151391?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5151391?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11449711-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5151391 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5151391?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5151391?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5151391?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11449711-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

31 Parera Crescent, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5151391 — 14-day notice

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenant requested an adjournment because he claimed that he had only received copies of the landlord’s submission and documentation on the afternoon of Friday 14 February 2025. While the tenant was seeking further time to prepare for the hearing, he did not know what that preparation was to involve.
The Tribunal declined the tenant’s request for an adjournment for the following reasons: a. The tenant had received the Notice of Hearing by email on 5 February 2025 containing details of the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy for breach of the tenancy terms. This was adequate for him to understand the nature of the landlord’s claims. b. Section 91(2) Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”) entitles the tenant to receive written particulars sufficient to fairly inform him of the substance of the matters to be dealt with at the hearing. Further, the written notice must include a reference to the relevant provisions of the Act or regulations under the authority of which the hearing was to be held. The Notice of Hearing complies with these statutory requirements. c. The High Court decision of Lwee v Tenancy Tribunal [2013] NZHC 1602 comments: “[34]...The Tenancy Tribunal does not function on the basis that evidence, for example in the form of witness statements, must be provided in advance of the hearing. The statutory obligation is to ensure that the “substance of the matters” in dispute are known to the other party.” “[38] Section 96 confirms that it is for the Tribunal to regulate its procedure generally. It seems to me that in light of the Act practical simplicity, knowledge of the substance of the opponents’ case and a speedy hearing and resolution of the dispute are the touchstones which must be met by an adjudicator in order to ensure a fair hearing.” d. The tenant made no mention of not having received any attachments to that email on 7 February 2025 when he went into the Court and confirmed his contact details. e. Part of the landlord’s application includes a shooting which has taken place outside the property and an escalation of the alleged breaches of neighbour’s quiet enjoyment. The landlord’s application needs to be considered as a matter of urgency. f. The landlord did not agree to the adjournment.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. 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 landlord’s application has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. 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.
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 decided. Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and videos or sound recordings are helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence, 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.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
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 landlord’s application with this requirement in mind. The landlord’s evidence
The landlord provided the following evidence: a. A timeline of complaints made about the tenant or his guests’ behaviour from the start of the tenancy, together with copies of notices issued to the tenant for breaches of his tenancy and for anti-social behaviour as follows: i. A breach notice dated 21 December 2023 (the first day of the tenancy) for setting off fireworks and directing them at a neighbour’s property. ii. A community complaint on 1 February 2024 about a party and loud music on 31 January 2024. iii. A neighbour’s complaint on 5 May 2024 about constant loud music at night. iv. A community complaint on 12 August 2024: “Subwoofer started at 8am and hasn’t stopped all morning.” v. A neighbour’s complaint on 24 August 2024 about loud music being played “all night”. vi. A neighbour’s complaint that “Gang members have been going over to my neighbour’s house and are very intimidating to everyone in the street. The house is also known for selling drugs (methamphetamine). On 8 September 2024 there was two carloads of ... gang members, and I witnessed a few holding guns.” vii. A police record of a complaint about people at the property threatening a neighbour on 15 September 2024. viii. A first notice of anti-social behaviour on 26 September 2024 for verbally abusing a neighbour and threatening the neighbour: “I’m going to jump this fence and knock you out.” ix. An anonymous complaint on 30 October 2024 about loud bass music. x. An anonymous complaint on 11 November 2024 about a group of girls carrying “bats” came to the property threatening to abuse the person they were looking for. xi. A breach notice on 12 November 2024 for burning wood in the backyard and disturbing the quiet enjoyment of the neighbours on 8 November 2024. xii. Anonymous complaints on 20 November 2024 and 6 December 2024 about often hearing fighting from the property. xiii. A neighbour’s complaint on 11 December 2024 about dogs barking, fighting and screaming making the neighbours feel unsafe. xiv. A breach notice on 11 December 2024 for excessive dog barking at the property from 9 to 11 December 2024 based on the neighbours’ complaints and the District Council’s record of complaints. xv. A second notice of anti-social behaviour on 16 December 2024 regarding a dog barking all morning on 9 December 2024 and the night of 10 December 2024. This was supported by neighbours’ complaints and the District Council’s record of complaints. The notice records: “We spoke to you on 12 December 2024 and you admitted to us that you have a dog on the property.” xvi. A breach notice on 19 December 2024 about “loud bass music coming from your home for long periods of time throughout the day.” xvii. A neighbour’s complaint on 20 December 2024 about fireworks being let off and aimed at neighbours’ properties after 11 pm on 19 December 2024. xviii. A series of neighbours’ complaints about loud music, domestic violence, aggressive behaviour and domestic violence between 20 December 2024 and 5 January 2025. xix. An anonymous complaint on 9 January 2025 about “Scary incident, lots of yelling, vehicle pulled up loud banging noises and confrontation, not sure police arrived again to this address, this is wild, how unsafe, move tenants on! Community deserves better”. A breach notice on 10 January 2025 regarding this behaviour. xx. A neighbour’s complaint on 15 January 2025: ““This house is pure chaos, motorbike pulled up around 9pm Tuesday evening, male voice yelling and something metal thrown, will call police if escalates further, please these tenants are unhinged, not safe”. xxi. An anonymous complaint on 18 January 2025 about loud motorbikes visiting the property at midnight and: “Crazy bass started 8pm will go most of the night”. xxii. On 20 January 2025 a neighbour complained of an altercation at the property at 3 pm involving gun shots and three men carrying pistols and an assault rifle. xxiii. On 24 January 2025 a neighbour informed the landlord that there had been a further shooting incident at the property. xxiv. The shootings were confirmed by a neighbour’s email of 24 January 2025 to the landlord. xxv. A neighbour’s complaint on 27 January 2025 about “muffled bass and construction hammering at 2 am on 27 January 2025.” xxvi. An anonymous complaint on 30 January 2025 about there always being “shouting and screaming” from the property. xxvii. Anonymous complaints on 30 January 2025 about loud music from
30 am and “all night”. xxviii. Anonymous complaint on 31 January 2025 about loud bass music all night and the tenant shouting at 10.20 pm. xxix. A neighbour’s complaint on 31 January 2025 about a tv or stereo that “shakes the “neighbours” “24x7”. xxx. An anonymous complaint on 4 February 2025 about the tenant “smoking weed” at the back of the property. xxxi. An anonymous complaint on 4 February about “biblical level yelling screaming fighting” between 9.40 and 10.00 am. xxxii. An anonymous complaint on 5 February 2025 about a pit-bull barking. xxxiii. On 12 February 2025 the landlord spoke to the tenant about the noise complaints it was receiving and the shooting that had occurred at the property. The tenant confirmed that his son had been shot and was alive. The landlord urged the tenant to attend the upcoming hearing and noted that the application was for termination of the tenancy. xxxiv. A neighbour complaint on 13 February 2025 about “swearing and yelling” at 10 pm on 12 February 2025. xxxv. A complaint by email on 14 February 2025 about “verbal abuse and yelling”. b. The property is one of 32 in a complex built in 2023. c. The tenant was moved to this property because of a history of ongoing anti-social behaviour at a previous tenancy. d. The complaints are being received from seven different individuals. e. The police advised by email on 12 February 2025 that the tenant was not assisting them with their investigation into the shooting that occurred outside the property involving the tenant’s son and that: “This is clearly a nonaccidental shooting so there is a high risk of retaliation and ongoing violence of a similar nature from the parties involved.” f. Emails dated 7 January 2025 from the council’s noise control contractor confirming that they are proactively monitoring the property from 7 am but also confirming that despite attending the property for a large number of noise complaints, they had not found “any foundation of excessive noise”. g. The neighbours’ complaints are that the tenant has disrupted their peace and quiet enjoyment to such an extent that they feel intimidated and fearful for their safety. h. The complaints are anonymous because the neighbours are seriously concerned that if their identities were known, the tenant or his associates may respond violently. i. The landlord also fears for the safety of its staff in visiting the property. j. The Senior Housing Support Manager gave evidence that the landlord has been receiving complaints since the start of the tenancy on an almost daily basis. The complaints are usually about noise, yelling, fighting, screaming, loud music and banging in the middle of the night. Noise control will not effectively monitor the property or respond to complaints because of concerns for their staff’s safety. k. The sheer volume of complaints over the entire year of the tenancy and the tenant’s failure to engage with the landlord in addressing the ongoing issues, combined with the escalation of the behaviour and the involvement of guns has led the landlord to urgently seek termination out of concern for its neighbouring tenants. The tenant’s evidence and response
The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. He denied that his music was loud and claimed that his only source of music is a blue tooth speaker. b. The fireworks did not originate from the property. c. He does not drink or party and has no gang affiliations. d. The only guns that have been on the property were his sons’ nerf guns. e. He confirmed that his son was shot outside while living in the neighbouring property occupied by the tenant’s daughter. f. He yells at his children at times but does not swear at them. g. He had his brother’s dog for a month but it now lives with his daughter next door. h. The landlord’s evidence confirms that the tenant denied the complaints made on 5 May 2024, 12 August 2024, 30 October 2024, 11 November 2024, 15 and 18 January 2025. Discussion and decision
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.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered section 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while the balance of probabilities is a constant standard: “It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: “[102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.”
Section 97(4) RTA provides that: “... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law”.
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord’s application is based on numerous anonymous complaints. None of the statements or diary entries identify any of the complainants. No eyewitness to any of the incidents gave evidence to the Tribunal. The Tribunal must be cautious when considering the probative value of such evidence.
The absence of such evidence in relation to the most serious allegations regarding the carrying of guns to the property would cast serious doubt on their validity, were it not for the accepted fact that there was a shooting outside the property involving the tenant’s son.
The tenant has denied responsibility for virtually all the incidents and behaviour leading to the complaints and the issuing of the notices.
The landlord believes that the observation in the Police’s email of 12 February 2025 that there is a high risk of retaliation and ongoing violence is evidence of the dangerousness of the situation caused by the tenant and his associates.
The landlord argued that the email evidence of the Council’s noise control contractor confirms that the tenant and his associates are intimidating; yet the contractors’ evidence confirms that no substance was found to the noise complaint.
The landlord has issued: a. Two anti-social notices on 26 September 2024 and 16 December 2024. b. Four breach notices on 21 December 2023, 12 November 2024, 11 December 2024 and 19 December 2024.
The two notices for anti-social behaviour issued on 26 September 2024 and 16 December 2024 included advice about the tenant’s ability to challenge each notice and where to get legal advice. The tenant has not challenged those notices and it is therefore reasonable to accept that the incidents occurred. The threat of assault to a neighbour in the first notice may have been sufficient grounds to apply for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c)(v) but the landlord did not make an application to the Tribunal.
The tenant has denied that he was involved in the fireworks incident in the 21 December 2023 notice, made no comment about the wood burning incident on 12 November 2024, acknowledged that a dog was present at the property but that it has been removed and denied fighting and swearing in the notice of 11 December 2024 and denied that there had been loud music coming from the property as alleged in the notice of 19 December 2024.
The landlord has asked the Tribunal to rely on the sheer volume and regularity of the complaints from seven separate witnesses to overcome the lack of evidence in person. In this case, because all the complaints are anonymous and the complainants have not given evidence in person and been able to be cross-examined, and in the face of the tenant’s denial of their basis, they have little probative value.
The Tribunal is reluctant to rely on anonymous witness evidence. It is not unknown for a group of neighbours to collude in lodging complaints to get a tenant evicted. Termination of a tenancy is the Tribunal’s ultimate sanction. It understands the significant impact it has a tenant and it needs to see sound and cogent evidence before deciding to terminate a tenancy.
The landlord received 25 complaints but has issued only six notices. Almost all the complaints would have justified the issuing of anti-social notices, especially those related to noise, but the landlord did not do so. The landlord could then have proceeded with an application under section 55A RTA. It has chosen not to do so. The landlord could also have applied under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA for termination based on the threatening of a neighbour. It has not done so.
While the shootings which have occurred outside the property will undoubtedly have been alarming to the tenant’s neighbours, it is difficult to see how the actions of unknown persons who are not the guests of the tenant can be the cause of a breach by the tenant of the RTA.
The Tribunal accepts on the evidence before it that the landlord has proven the following breaches on the balance of probabilities: a. The incident involving abusing and threatening a neighbour contained in the anti-social behaviour notice of 26 September 2024 because the tenant has not challenged it through the Tribunal. b. The incident involving excessive dog barking in the anti-social behaviour notice of 16 December 2024 because the tenant has not challenged it through the Tribunal and the tenant has admitted the dog’s presence.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has failed to persuade it on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has repeatedly breached the RTA in the manner complained of in the notices issued, except for those indicated above.
The Tribunal concludes that it would not be inequitable to refuse the landlord’s application for termination because: a. The only incidents that have been proven on the balance of probabilities are those in the anti-social notices of 26 September 2024 and 16 December 2024. b. While numerous anonymous complaints have been received, there is insufficient proof, such as personal testimony or independent reports from the local authority’s contractor, to support the allegations.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5151391 — 14-day notice at 31 Parera Crescent, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5151391 — 14-day notice at 31 Parera Crescent, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions