What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5240731 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5240731?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5240731?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5240731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11808264-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5240731 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5240731?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5240731?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5240731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11808264-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32B Houhere Street, Paraparaumu, Paraparaumu 5032 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5240731 — Harassment

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for anti-social behaviour.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The applicant claimed the tenant had engaged in the following behaviour: a) Serious arguments; b) Session of very loud arguments; and c) Continual door slamming, yelling, using the carport area not included in the tenancy and smoking in the carport.

In support of that claim, the following evidence was produced. Emails sent to the tenant and emails and text messages between the upstairs tenant and the landlord.

Section 55A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides, The Tribunal must (subject to subsection (3)) make the order if satisfied that— (a)on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or 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), 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 (see sections 77(1) and 78(1)(a) regarding the Tribunal).

Section 55A(7) sets out that anti-social means, (a) harassment; or (b) any other act or omission (whether intentional or not), if the act or omission reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor.

The landlord sent three emails to the tenant which he considers to be notices as required by section 55A(2). The first email was sent at 9.36am on 7 April 2025. The second email was sent at 10.22am on 7 April 2025. The third email was sent on 17 April 2025.

I am not satisfied that the emails comply with the requirements set out in section 55A(2). The emails do not provide sufficient detail of the specific behaviour or the date and approximate time of the behaviour. In addition, there is no advice provided to the tenant of her right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice.

As well as the notices not complying, I am not satisfied that all the behaviour complained of amounts to anti-social behaviour. For example, slamming doors is not anti-social behaviour.

The neighbours had complained to the landlord about the behaviour but there were no complaints to the Police or noise control.

On the evidence before me the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence for a termination order due to anti-social behaviour. The application is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for anti-social behaviour.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claimed the tenant had engaged in the following behaviour: a) Serious arguments; b) Session of very loud arguments; and c) Continual door slamming, yelling, using the carport area not included in the tenancy and smoking in the carport.
In support of that claim, the following evidence was produced. Emails sent to the tenant and emails and text messages between the upstairs tenant and the landlord.
Section 55A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides, The Tribunal must (subject to subsection (3)) make the order if satisfied that— (a)on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or 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), 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 (see sections 77(1) and 78(1)(a) regarding the Tribunal).
Section 55A(7) sets out that anti-social means, (a) harassment; or (b) any other act or omission (whether intentional or not), if the act or omission reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor.
The landlord sent three emails to the tenant which he considers to be notices as required by section 55A(2). The first email was sent at 9.36am on 7 April 2025. The second email was sent at 10.22am on 7 April 2025. The third email was sent on 17 April 2025.
I am not satisfied that the emails comply with the requirements set out in section 55A(2). The emails do not provide sufficient detail of the specific behaviour or the date and approximate time of the behaviour. In addition, there is no advice provided to the tenant of her right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice.
As well as the notices not complying, I am not satisfied that all the behaviour complained of amounts to anti-social behaviour. For example, slamming doors is not anti-social behaviour.
The neighbours had complained to the landlord about the behaviour but there were no complaints to the Police or noise control.
On the evidence before me the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence for a termination order due to anti-social behaviour. The application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5240731 — Harassment at 32B Houhere Street, Paraparaumu, Paraparaumu 5032

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5240731 — Harassment at 32B Houhere Street, Paraparaumu, Paraparaumu 5032

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions