What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5154111 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 5154111?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5154111?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5154111?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11977393-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5154111 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 5154111?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5154111?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5154111?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11977393-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

154A Tipahi Street, Nelson South, Nelson 7010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5154111 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This was a continuation after a previous adjournment of a teleconference hearing to allow an in-person appearance by the tenant. The tenant also had evidence with her at the first hearing that could not be considered given the method of hearing.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on either the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises or, in the alternative, because of a threat of assault made by the tenant against a neighbour.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

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, videos or 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.

By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence.

The premises is one of a number owned by the landlord in that neighbourhood. There are seven neighbouring properties to this premises.

The tenancy commenced in July 2020. This is the first landlord application regarding this tenancy.

When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.

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.

Three notices were issued. First: 31 December 2024

This notice cited excessive noise (music and vehicle) on 30 December 2024 between midnight and 3am.

The tenant spoke to the local landlord by phone on 31 December and claimed she advised them that she and her boyfriend were away and the premises was empty during the night of the complaint.

Beyond the complaint, no sound or video recordings were available. No record of any noise control or police report was available. Second: 9 January 2025

The second notice concerned an assault on a neighbour by the tenant’s boyfriend. The assault was not disputed, and police were involved and criminal charges made against the boyfriend. He was bailed with one condition he stay away from the area.

The tenant submitted she had no prior notice of such violent intent, was away at the time of the assault and was shocked when she heard about it. She stated she apologised to the neighbour. Third: 25 January 2025.

This notice was served after the tenant made serious treats against a neighbour. This same event was cited as the alternative grounds for termination per s 55(1)(c), being a threat to assault a neighbour.

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 have considered the evidence presented by the parties as set out above. I also heard lengthy submissions and from the neighbour who appeared as a witness (by telephone). This neighbour had made the three anti-social complaints and was the recipient of the threat of assault on 25 January 2025.

I have determined that the landlord has not established that first anti-social behaviour incident of 31 December 2024 meets the evidential threshold to be considered anti-social behaviour that is more than minor. The second and third do, although there is some uncertainty about the tenant’s direct knowledge regarding the second notice. If the tenant was, the landlord was open to making a claim under s 55(1)(c) at that time.

I have also considered written evidence from the tenant of a series of calls between her and Tenancy Services. She claims these were about the notices and her disputing them. Subsequent events meant she did not pursue this path further.

Given the rejection of the first notice, I do not consider three valid notices have been served and I dismiss the request for termination on the grounds provided in s 55A RTA.

Should the tenancy be terminated for the threat to assault a neighbour?

Section 55(1)(c)(v) provides the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, any neighbour of the premises.

The landlord claims that on 25 January 2025 the tenant threatened to assault a neighbour. This is the same neighbour who had lodged previous complaints with the landlord regarding this tenancy.

The neighbour has a CCTV and two short video clips were provided. The tenant does not dispute she threatened to assault the neighbour. The video evidence of such a threat was conclusive regardless. Damage to the neighbour’s vehicle also occurred. The police responded to a call by the neighbour and the tenant was charged and is at present going through a criminal hearing regarding this.

In my previous adjourning order I had requested an extended video of the confrontation given the claims of the tenant regarding prior provocation. This was not available. Given the neighbour’s appearance as a witness, I was able to ask more about this. She explained the CCTV is triggered by a motion sensor. This was discussed later in the hearing and the two videos revisited. While I accept what I was told by the neighbour, the first video commencement, and an unrecorded gap between the two closely timed videos, with motion still occurring, was curious.

In the absence of any extended video that might assist, I was left with two different versions of proceeding events that might have contributed to the later threat.

It appears the boyfriend had been coming to the premises in the preceding two weeks to the event of 25 January 2025, in breach of his bail conditions. The neighbour recounted overhearing a conversation from the tenant and boyfriend that concerned her as she considered it may have been regarding her and some gang involvement. In fairness, the neighbour acknowledged this conclusion was not definitive. Given her son was the previous neighbour who was the victim of assault by the boyfriend, such sensitivity is understandable.

The neighbour called the police regarding the breach of bail and the police attended and removed the boyfriend. There was a recounting by the tenant of how shortly afterwards she overheard a conversation between the neighbour and one of her family that used inflammatory language that was assumed to be about her boyfriend. That lead to the confrontation in the first video, but the initial phase did not make it onto the video despite the tenant appearing to be well within motion triggering range before the start of the video.

Both parties had responded to overheard, rather than direct, conversations.

Essentially the landlord has established the tenant threatened to assault the neighbour. The tenant accepts this. The grounds for termination are established.

However, section 55(2) provides the Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies.

I have considered a number of mitigating factors here. Of the multiple neighbours, there is one who has originated the complaints. That, in itself, is not conclusive but given the tenant and neighbour have co-existed for almost

5 years before the serious assault and subsequent threat to the neighbour there is not an apparent history of behaviours. I note that since the January events there have been no further repeat. I also have competing versions of interactions proceeding the significant event of 25 January 2025, with no compelling evidence from either to determine one version is more likely than not.

For the above reasons, but by a fine margin, I refuse to terminate the tenancy at this time. In dismissing the landlord request, I stress again, as I did at the hearing, that I am not dismissive of the events and the impact on the neighbour. I have given the tenant the benefit of the doubt this time but she should be clear on how any future repeat behaviours that lead to an application such as here may not result in the tenancy continuing.

The tenant has expressed what appears to be a genuine desire to heal the relationship. I hope some way of achieving that is found. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Further, 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 landlord did not requested suppression in its application. The tenant requested suppression at the hearing.

Given the application is dismissed I consider it appropriate to suppress the tenant’s name. She is aware of the future likely consequences of repeat behaviour and if a future order is made it can be public. As discussed with the landlord, there is no problem with this order being shared with the neighbour after appropriate name redaction. She is entitled to read the determination here without waiting for the redacted version to be published at some later date.

Reasons