What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4637413?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4637413?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4637413?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4637413?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9354931-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4637413?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4637413?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4637413?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4637413?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9354931-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 303, 41 Smythe Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4637413 — Harassment

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Vincent Kitson at Unit/Flat 303, 41 Smythe Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612, Level Three is terminated, and possession is granted to Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited, at the end of Monday 11 September 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by telephone.
This is a social housing property that houses people with several types of vulnerabilities.
The tenant has lived in the property for 2 years. The tenancy agreement states there is to be no more than one tenant in the premises. If the tenant wants another person to move in for more than 3 months, including anyone bailed to the address, then the tenant must obtain the permission of the landlord before the other person moves in. The agreement refers to the premises not being used for an unlawful purpose.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on several grounds. (a)the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission. (b)breach of the tenancy agreement by allowing others to serve their bail sentence on the property and allowing additional occupants to reside in the premises.
There are several notices sent to the tenant. These are somewhat confusing as it relates not only to anti-social behaviour but also breach of the interfering with the relative peace, comfort or privacy of other tenants and neighbours living in the block. Section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The first notice dated 15 May 2023 refers to the breach of the tenancy agreement by allowing the others to serve their Bail sentence in the premises and allowing additional occupants to reside in the premises. It does not describe what the anti-social behaviour is.
A second notice dated 6 June 2023 refers to raised voices with loud and abusive language and persons sleeping in the hallway.
Another second notice dated 4 July 2023 refers to raised voices, screaming and arguing, children crying and what sounds like family harm from the tenant’s unit with police attending.
The third notice dated 20 July 2023 refers to excessive motorbike notice, loud voices yelling and screaming on 2 separate occasions close together with visitors staying the night.
On 15 August 2023 a further notice is served after multiple complaints received where a large police presence with dogs and arrests were made on the property with firearms and drugs found and removed. Damage was sustained to the property.
On 23 August 2023 a further notice was served referring to people screaming at an unreasonable time disrupting neighbours. There is reference to aggressive behaviour spilling out into the communal hallway.
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 made some mistake with the first notice served and refers to two second notices as required in the Residential Tenancies Act. It does not describe the behaviour but rather the breach of contract.
The application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I have considered all the notices sent, particularly the last 2 notices sent, referring to the interfering of the reasonable peace and quiet of the neighbourhood. In total, 5 notices have been sent describing anti-social behaviour between 6 June 2023 and 23 August 2023.
There is an escalating pattern of behaviour of increasing violence and disruption to the neighbourhood.
Mr Kitson says the problem has been solved by one nephew being held in remand and the other bailed to another address. I am not convinced the problem will be solved as easily as that. It is unfortunate Mr Kitson has been caught up in this entrenched behaviour that appears to be caused by family members, but he has allowed this to continue and get worse.
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 which the tenant accepts have been received.
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 at the end of Monday 11 September 2023.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Vincent Kitson at Unit/Flat 303, 41 Smythe Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612, Level Three is terminated, and possession is granted to Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited, at the end of Monday 11 September 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by telephone.
This is a social housing property that houses people with several types of vulnerabilities.
The tenant has lived in the property for 2 years. The tenancy agreement states there is to be no more than one tenant in the premises. If the tenant wants another person to move in for more than 3 months, including anyone bailed to the address, then the tenant must obtain the permission of the landlord before the other person moves in. The agreement refers to the premises not being used for an unlawful purpose.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on several grounds. (a)the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission. (b)breach of the tenancy agreement by allowing others to serve their bail sentence on the property and allowing additional occupants to reside in the premises.
There are several notices sent to the tenant. These are somewhat confusing as it relates not only to anti-social behaviour but also breach of the interfering with the relative peace, comfort or privacy of other tenants and neighbours living in the block. Section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The first notice dated 15 May 2023 refers to the breach of the tenancy agreement by allowing the others to serve their Bail sentence in the premises and allowing additional occupants to reside in the premises. It does not describe what the anti-social behaviour is.
A second notice dated 6 June 2023 refers to raised voices with loud and abusive language and persons sleeping in the hallway.
Another second notice dated 4 July 2023 refers to raised voices, screaming and arguing, children crying and what sounds like family harm from the tenant’s unit with police attending.
The third notice dated 20 July 2023 refers to excessive motorbike notice, loud voices yelling and screaming on 2 separate occasions close together with visitors staying the night.
On 15 August 2023 a further notice is served after multiple complaints received where a large police presence with dogs and arrests were made on the property with firearms and drugs found and removed. Damage was sustained to the property.
On 23 August 2023 a further notice was served referring to people screaming at an unreasonable time disrupting neighbours. There is reference to aggressive behaviour spilling out into the communal hallway.
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 made some mistake with the first notice served and refers to two second notices as required in the Residential Tenancies Act. It does not describe the behaviour but rather the breach of contract.
The application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I have considered all the notices sent, particularly the last 2 notices sent, referring to the interfering of the reasonable peace and quiet of the neighbourhood. In total, 5 notices have been sent describing anti-social behaviour between 6 June 2023 and 23 August 2023.
There is an escalating pattern of behaviour of increasing violence and disruption to the neighbourhood.
Mr Kitson says the problem has been solved by one nephew being held in remand and the other bailed to another address. I am not convinced the problem will be solved as easily as that. It is unfortunate Mr Kitson has been caught up in this entrenched behaviour that appears to be caused by family members, but he has allowed this to continue and get worse.
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 which the tenant accepts have been received.
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 at the end of Monday 11 September 2023.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4637413 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 303, 41 Smythe Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4637413 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 303, 41 Smythe Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions