How much money was awarded in case 5243371?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243371?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11887446-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5243371?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243371?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11887446-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 105, 4 Beaumonts Way, Manurewa, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5243371 — Harassment

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5243371 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

The tenancy of Rosezita Waller at Unit/Flat 105, 4 Beaumonts Way, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.

I am satisfied that the tenant had notice of the hearing. Section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where notice of a hearing has been given to a party and that party does not attend at the hearing, the Tribunal may hear and determine the matter in the absence of the party. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

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.

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is disturbing the quiet enjoyment of neighbouring tenants by having large groups (about 20) of people attend for long periods of drinking, loud music, and tagging. The Police had been called by neighbouring tenants.

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.

I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.

I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.

I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.

I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Rosezita Waller at Unit/Flat 105, 4 Beaumonts Way, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
I am satisfied that the tenant had notice of the hearing. Section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where notice of a hearing has been given to a party and that party does not attend at the hearing, the Tribunal may hear and determine the matter in the absence of the party. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
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.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is disturbing the quiet enjoyment of neighbouring tenants by having large groups (about 20) of people attend for long periods of drinking, loud music, and tagging. The Police had been called by neighbouring tenants.
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.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243371 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 105, 4 Beaumonts Way, Manurewa, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243371 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 105, 4 Beaumonts Way, Manurewa, Auckland

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