What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5153334 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5153334?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153334?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153334?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11519194-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5153334 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5153334?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153334?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153334?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11519194-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5153334 — Harassment

Order

The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing: The landlord attended in person and the tenant attended by teleconference.
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. Burden of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the is burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.
If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed. Application for termination
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 landlord has included four notices for anti-social behaviour in this application.
The first notice, dated 31 January 2025 relates to an incident on 28 January 2025. The landlord claims a neighbour was talking with a boy, when five men came from the tenant’s and started provoking a fight. A complaint was made by a second neighbour, “Mr B” to the landlord.
The tenant stated that on that day her 11-year old son was “having a moment” being angry and she and her two brothers were trying to control him and calm him down. A neighbour then came out of a house and started yelling at the tenant’s son, which caused the son to turn his attention to the woman.
The tenant stated that her son has anger issues and she is currently looking to find him counselling and mentors.
On balance I find the tenant’s version of events to be more credible. The tenant presented, albeit over the telephone, as forthright, honest and with a good recollection of events. The landlord did not bring any witnesses, and her account of what happened is second-hand.
I do not find it proved that this was an incident of anti-social behaviour.
The second notice, dated 31 January 2025 relates to an incident on 23 January 2025. The landlord claims that a few residents were having an argument outside of the tenant’s house. The neighbour Mr B drove up and one of the people arguing who was drunk, tried to forcefully open Mr B’s car door.
The tenant stated that on that day a person called [Redacted] turned up at her house drunk. Although [Redacted] is known to her, he is not welcome at her house and he was not invited over. The tenant was coming home from the doctor when she saw [Redacted]. When the tenant told [Redacted] he wasn’t welcome, [Redacted] who was drunk tried to open Mr B’s car door to ask for a lift home.
Again on balance I find the tenant’s version of events to be credible. The tenant’s version does not negate the landlord’s claims but it does create context and importantly that context includes that the person causing the disturbance was not at the tenant’s property with her consent.
In the circumstances I cannot find that this is an example of the tenant or someone at the tenant’s property with the tenant’s consent, acting in an antisocial way.
The third notice, dated 1 February 2025 relates to an incident on 31 January 2025. The landlord claims that on the night of 31 January 2025 the tenant had a party and was playing loud music until 4.00 am. The neighbour Mr B made a complaint to the landlord.
The tenant states that she did have a party and there was loud music. She doesn’t believe that the music carried on until 4.00 am. The landlord claims this was the latest in a series of noisy parties at the tenant’s house.
Every good-natured party with loud music playing into the night, is not going to amount to antisocial behaviour. A loud party with fighting and arguing on the street which attracts the attention of police or repeated callouts from noise control may amount to antisocial behaviour.
Although I do not intend to minimise Mr B’s experience, I am aware that currently there are multiple complaints coming from one source. On the basis of one complaint, I do not find that this party amounts to antisocial behaviour.
The fourth notice, dated 18 February 2025 relates to an incident on 18 February 2025. The landlord claims on this day there was an aggressive dispute between “the same” couple, with loud music and cars speeding in and out of the tenant’s driveway.
The tenant accepts that there was an argument on this day between herself and the father of her 8-month old baby. Her account is that the argument lasted several minutes. It started inside and then carried on outside when the baby’s father took the baby for a walk. According to the tenant, the argument would not have been heard by anyone unless they were outside. The tenant states she does not own a car or drive, and that any speeding cars were nothing to do with her.
Again on balance I prefer the information provided by the tenant. Her evidence is direct, compared to the landlord’s which is second-hand.
I do not find an argument between a couple lasting several minutes to amount to antisocial behaviour.
In summary, I do not find any of the claims of antisocial behaviour proved. The landlord’s application
On a procedural level I also note there are two problems with the landlord’s application.
The first is that the notices set out the start date for the 90-day period as being 31 January 2025. Two of the notices (the two notices dated 31 January 2025) refer to incidents that occurred prior to this date, on 23 January 2025 and 28 January 2025.
The RTA states that the tenant or an associated person must have engaged in the anti-social behaviour within this 90-day period. That is not what has happened with these two notices.
I have questioned whether or not this is an error of a technical nature, that can be corrected without prejudice to the respondent. Clearly if the application succeeds then the tenancy will be terminated which would cause prejudice to the tenant; but this is not prejudice that is inconsistent with the law.
However there is a second problem with the landlord’s application.
The first two notices were served on the same day, a Friday, and the third notice was served on the following day, a Saturday. The three incidents that are referred to with these three notices were on 23 January 2025, 28 January 2025 and 1 February 2025 respectively.
In effect the tenant was served three notices at once.
In [2021] NZTT Auckland 4301453, the adjudicator stated the following: [16] The purpose of being delivered a notice which expressly sets out the requirements in s 55A(2)(b) is so the tenant has the ability to apply to the Tribunal for orders challenging the notice or to otherwise seek to correct the alleged anti-social behaviour. Otherwise, a landlord could deliver three notices on the same day, for three separate earlier events, all taking place on different days, and the tenant has had no opportunity to correct their behaviour.”
In that case, the adjudicator determined that it would be unfair in the circumstances to terminate the tenancy, and she declined to do so.
I agree with that adjudicator’s interpretation of this provision; it applies directly to this case. The tenant here has not been afforded an opportunity to challenge the notices, or to address the behaviour which has been occurring.
Furthermore, given the first notice refers to an incident that occurred eight days prior, the landlord could have served a notice more promptly which would have given her an opportunity to address the issues at one or another level.
In my view the lack of strict compliance with the act on the landlord’s part, means there is prejudice to the tenant. In these circumstances it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy in any case. Name suppression
The tenant raised the issue of name suppression. In her view if her name is published, particularly in a case where there are contested facts that have not been proved, publishing of her name could have an unfairly prejudicial impact when she applies for future tenancies.
Under section 95A(4) of the RTA, the tribunal may of its own initiative order suppression of a party’s identifying details having regard to the interests of the parties.
I consider there is sensitive information involved in this application which mean that it is in the interests of the tenant that her details are not published.
Name suppression is therefore ordered for the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153334 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153334 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions