How much money was awarded in case 4625753?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4625753?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4625753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9235255-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4625753?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4625753?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4625753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9235255-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1A, 14 Airedale Place, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4625753 — 14-day notice

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4625753?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

The tenancy of Bradley Toms at Unit/Flat 1A, 14 Airedale Place, Christchurch Central, Christchurch 8013 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59 am on Friday 4 August 2023.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend when the matter was called at 2pm and 2.10 pm.

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 consisted of the tenant and his partner shouting, swearing, threatening behaviour, threatening to cause grievous bodily harm, possession of an offensive weapon (knife) and slamming of doors often in the early hours of the morning, at the premises.

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 provided evidence from a number of tenants who were not surprisingly alarmed by the actions of the tenant Bradley Toms and his partner (a person at the premises with the tenant’s permission).

The evidence included a sound recording of the tenant and his partner involved in a domestic violence incident outside the premises. The recording was taken from inside the premises. The swearing and threats made by the tenant and his partner outside were still clearly audible in the recording.

The evidence included a Police call summary sheet showing the multiple occasions where they have been called to the premises as a result of the tenant’s behaviour.

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.

The tenancy is terminated.

The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

The landlord served a 14 day notice on the tenant which is dated 29 March 2023. The notice states: “You are in breach of your signed tenancy agreement which states: Section 4 THE LANDLORD AND TENANT AGREE THAT:

No more than .....persons/may live at the premises. You are required to remedy the breach of this agreement within 14 days....”

I do not think that is sufficient notice to the tenant of the issue that he is required to remedy. In my view, the notice should have specifically included the maximum number of tenants allowed for in the Tenancy Agreement.

The application under s.56 RTA is dismissed.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend when the matter was called at 2pm and 2.10 pm.

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 evidence included a Police call summary sheet showing the multiple occasions where they have been called to the premises as a result of the tenant’s behaviour.

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

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

The tenancy is terminated.

The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

No more than .....persons/may live at the premises. You are required to remedy the breach of this agreement within 14 days....”

The application under s.56 RTA is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4625753 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 1A, 14 Airedale Place, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4625753 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 1A, 14 Airedale Place, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions