What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5211775 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 5211775?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5211775?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5211775?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11746419-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5211775 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 5211775?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5211775?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5211775?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11746419-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

37 Lonsdale Street, New Brighton, Christchurch 8083 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5211775 — Harassment

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Brown and Mr Frost represented the landlord.

The landlord has applied for an order ending the occupancy of the tenants’ flatmate, who, it alleges, has behaved in a threatening manner.

There are three named tenants; the other resident is a flatmate. In total there are four people residing at the premises which the tenancy agreement allows.

The landlord does not seek to terminate the tenancy, only to have the occupancy of the flatmate revoked.

The flatmate is not a squatter; he is a named resident and has been granted a right of occupation. So, the landlord cannot invoke section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) which allows for the eviction of squatters. Even if it could, the landlord is not seeking possession of the premises; it wants the tenancy to continue.

Because the tenants want their flatmate to continue residing with them, neither is this a situation where the licence to occupy the premises as a resident/flatmate has been revoked, such that the flatmate has become a trespasser. He is not. He resides there with the consent of the tenants and with the knowledge of the landlord.

The only provision in the RTA that might apply is section 55A – termination for anti-social behaviour. That applies not only to tenants but to a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission. However, that section requires anti- social behaviour on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period with prescriptions around the giving of notices and what the notice must contain.

The landlord has not sought to rely on that section, nor could it in the absence of notices of anti-social behaviour.

The landlord’s application is dismissed as there is no order the Tribunal can make at this time.

I discussed the on-going management of the tenancy with the parties given that the stress points seem to revolve around inspections. The tenants’ flatmate does not have the same rights the tenants have. The tenants have no right to dictate which of the landlord’s staff conducts inspections. This is a situation that should be able to be managed with clear communication between the parties to take account of the flatmate’s health and other issues. Without cooperation it is probable that the tenancy will be back before the Tribunal before long. Name suppression.

Both parties sought an order for name suppression. The landlord is not entitled to an order since the application is not successful. The tenants are entitled to name suppression as they have successfully defended the application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Brown and Mr Frost represented the landlord.

The landlord has applied for an order ending the occupancy of the tenants’ flatmate, who, it alleges, has behaved in a threatening manner.

There are three named tenants; the other resident is a flatmate. In total there are four people residing at the premises which the tenancy agreement allows.

The landlord does not seek to terminate the tenancy, only to have the occupancy of the flatmate revoked.

The landlord has not sought to rely on that section, nor could it in the absence of notices of anti-social behaviour.

The landlord’s application is dismissed as there is no order the Tribunal can make at this time.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5211775 — Harassment at 37 Lonsdale Street, New Brighton, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5211775 — Harassment at 37 Lonsdale Street, New Brighton, Christchurch 8083

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