What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4656249?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Dorothy Mariner-Falefata at Unit/Flat 603, 8 Waikumete Road,

How much money was awarded in case 4656249?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4656249?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4656249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9721718-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4656249?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Dorothy Mariner-Falefata at Unit/Flat 603, 8 Waikumete Road,

How much money was awarded in case 4656249?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4656249?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4656249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9721718-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 603, 8 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4656249 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Dorothy Mariner-Falefata at Unit/Flat 603, 8 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 is terminated, and possession is granted to Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord seeking termination of the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour by a person on the premises with the consent of the tenant.
During the course of the tenancy, there has been a number of events with family members of the tenant, which include fighting and issues with those family members / member, carrying a bat and shovel which would be threatening to those living in this complex.
The landlord issued three anti-social behaviour notices to the tenant on 12 May 2023, 24 July 2023 and 14 August 2023.
It is important to record that the tenant accepts that the behaviour recorded in those notices occurred, and at the hearing today the tenant accepted that the behaviour would meet the definition of anti-social behaviour as found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), as I will discuss shortly.
However the tenant has confirmed that the family members who caused the problems are now obtaining necessary care, or leaving the premises.
The landlord advised that they have been working with the tenant, and providing there are no further issues at the tenancy, want to keep the tenant in her home – that is the termination would not be enforced if there are no further problems. Analysis
Section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), confirms that a landlord can apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating a periodic tenancy on the ground of anti-social behaviour, when: a. There has been 3 separate occasions of anti-social behaviour in connection with the premises, within 90 days. b. On each occasion the landlord has given the tenant a notice that: i. Describes the specific behaviour; and ii. Advised of the date and approximate location it occurred; and iii. Stating how many notices had been given; and iv. Advising the tenant of a right to challenge the notice in this Tribunal. c. The landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy must be within 28 days of the third notice.
Anti-social behaviour is defined in this section as follows: (7) In this section, anti-social behaviour 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.
However the Tribunal cannot make a termination order if in the circumstances of how the behaviour occurred, or the notices were given, it would be unfair to terminate, or if the landlord was issuing the notice in a retaliatory way, because the tenant was asserting some right or ability in relation to the tenancy.
The Act confirms that the Tribunal “must not take into account the impact that terminating the tenancy would have on the tenant”.
As indicated above, the tenant has accepted that the behaviour described occurred, and that it would be anti-social behaviour. Otherwise the further criteria set out in the provision above have been met, and I cannot see any reason to apply a discretion not to terminate the tenancy. For those reasons, the Tribunal orders termination of the tenancy.
However, as I have also indicated above, the landlord wants the tenant to stay in the premises providing there are no further problems, and the tenant has confirmed there will not be any further issues – that is heartening to hear. While I have ordered a termination of the tenancy, that does not mean the landlord must enforce it. Section 60(2) of the RTA confirms that if the landlord allows the tenant to remain in the tenancy for more than 90 days after receiving this termination and possession order, then the landlord is deemed to have granted a further tenancy.
To put that another way, if the landlord does not require the tenant to return the tenancy within the next 90 days, then this order I am issuing today will expire and have no further effect.
I wish the tenant well with getting things back on track so that she stays in her home, but at the same time ensuring her neighbours feel safe in theirs.

Order

The tenancy of Dorothy Mariner-Falefata at Unit/Flat 603, 8 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 is terminated, and possession is granted to Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord seeking termination of the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour by a person on the premises with the consent of the tenant.
During the course of the tenancy, there has been a number of events with family members of the tenant, which include fighting and issues with those family members / member, carrying a bat and shovel which would be threatening to those living in this complex.
The landlord issued three anti-social behaviour notices to the tenant on 12 May 2023, 24 July 2023 and 14 August 2023.
It is important to record that the tenant accepts that the behaviour recorded in those notices occurred, and at the hearing today the tenant accepted that the behaviour would meet the definition of anti-social behaviour as found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), as I will discuss shortly.
However the tenant has confirmed that the family members who caused the problems are now obtaining necessary care, or leaving the premises.
The landlord advised that they have been working with the tenant, and providing there are no further issues at the tenancy, want to keep the tenant in her home – that is the termination would not be enforced if there are no further problems. Analysis
Section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), confirms that a landlord can apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating a periodic tenancy on the ground of anti-social behaviour, when: a. There has been 3 separate occasions of anti-social behaviour in connection with the premises, within 90 days. b. On each occasion the landlord has given the tenant a notice that: i. Describes the specific behaviour; and ii. Advised of the date and approximate location it occurred; and iii. Stating how many notices had been given; and iv. Advising the tenant of a right to challenge the notice in this Tribunal. c. The landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy must be within 28 days of the third notice.
Anti-social behaviour is defined in this section as follows: (7) In this section, anti-social behaviour 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.
However the Tribunal cannot make a termination order if in the circumstances of how the behaviour occurred, or the notices were given, it would be unfair to terminate, or if the landlord was issuing the notice in a retaliatory way, because the tenant was asserting some right or ability in relation to the tenancy.
The Act confirms that the Tribunal “must not take into account the impact that terminating the tenancy would have on the tenant”.
As indicated above, the tenant has accepted that the behaviour described occurred, and that it would be anti-social behaviour. Otherwise the further criteria set out in the provision above have been met, and I cannot see any reason to apply a discretion not to terminate the tenancy. For those reasons, the Tribunal orders termination of the tenancy.
However, as I have also indicated above, the landlord wants the tenant to stay in the premises providing there are no further problems, and the tenant has confirmed there will not be any further issues – that is heartening to hear. While I have ordered a termination of the tenancy, that does not mean the landlord must enforce it. Section 60(2) of the RTA confirms that if the landlord allows the tenant to remain in the tenancy for more than 90 days after receiving this termination and possession order, then the landlord is deemed to have granted a further tenancy.
To put that another way, if the landlord does not require the tenant to return the tenancy within the next 90 days, then this order I am issuing today will expire and have no further effect.
I wish the tenant well with getting things back on track so that she stays in her home, but at the same time ensuring her neighbours feel safe in theirs.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4656249 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 603, 8 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4656249 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 603, 8 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden, Auckland

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