What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4675470?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4675470?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4675470?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4675470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9415881-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4675470?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4675470?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4675470?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4675470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9415881-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 99 Waltham Road, Sydenham, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4675470 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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. See s55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986(RTA).
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 produced three notices of anti-social behaviour. a. The first notice is date 17 July 2023 and alleges that the tenant has racially abused another tenant at this complex and has interfered with or damaged property that does not belong to him. It is in a format more usually used for “14 day notices” b. The second notice is dated 11 August 2023. It is alleged that the tenant was racially abusive towards another tenant. The conduct is alleged to have occurred on the road outside the premises on 9 August 2023. c. The third notice is dated 1 September 2023. It is alleged that the tenant damaged wiper blades on vehicles belonging to other tenants sometime over the weekend on 27/28 August 2023.
The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The RTA defines anti-social behaviour and provides strict processes that should be followed by the landlord when giving notices for anti-social behaviour that may lead to termination.
I have determined that the landlord has not established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission and has not established that the correct procedures were followed in relation to the notices issued because: a. The notices describe alleged behaviour but do not specify dates and/or times that the behaviour occurred that would allow me to conclude that the tenant had been at the premises and engaged in the behaviour alleged. b. There was no evidence that linked the tenant to the alleged damage to vehicles over the weekend of 27/28 August 2023. The tenant denied that it was him and provided evidence to show that his vehicle was also damaged. c. There was a lack of evidence of the alleged behaviour. The landlord says that this is because the neighbours are scared to come and give evidence. The Tribunal cannot act unless it has evidence directly from the people who saw or heard the antisocial behaviour, or other compelling corroborative evidence such as photographs or videos which show the antisocial behaviour. The Tribunal cannot act only on what the landlord has been told by neighbours. That is hearsay evidence. Although, the Tribunal can accept hearsay evidence it is always given much less weight than evidence given by the person who was there, because the person who was there can answer questions about what they saw or heard, and the Adjudicator can make an assessment on the witness’s credibility. d. The tenant claimed that the second and third notices were delivered on the same day 1 . The landlord disputes that but did not have evidence from the person who delivered the notices to confirm the delivery dates.
The application is dismissed.
Landlords should be aware that they have the burden of proving that a tenant is engaging in antisocial behaviour. That means that neighbours or other third parties may need to give evidence and the landlord should provide any documentary evidence such as photographs or video recordings to support their claim. A landlord who is unable to meet the evidential burden will not be able to prove their claim.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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. See s55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986(RTA).
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 produced three notices of anti-social behaviour. a. The first notice is date 17 July 2023 and alleges that the tenant has racially abused another tenant at this complex and has interfered with or damaged property that does not belong to him. It is in a format more usually used for “14 day notices” b. The second notice is dated 11 August 2023. It is alleged that the tenant was racially abusive towards another tenant. The conduct is alleged to have occurred on the road outside the premises on 9 August 2023. c. The third notice is dated 1 September 2023. It is alleged that the tenant damaged wiper blades on vehicles belonging to other tenants sometime over the weekend on 27/28 August 2023.
The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The RTA defines anti-social behaviour and provides strict processes that should be followed by the landlord when giving notices for anti-social behaviour that may lead to termination.
I have determined that the landlord has not established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission and has not established that the correct procedures were followed in relation to the notices issued because: a. The notices describe alleged behaviour but do not specify dates and/or times that the behaviour occurred that would allow me to conclude that the tenant had been at the premises and engaged in the behaviour alleged. b. There was no evidence that linked the tenant to the alleged damage to vehicles over the weekend of 27/28 August 2023. The tenant denied that it was him and provided evidence to show that his vehicle was also damaged. c. There was a lack of evidence of the alleged behaviour. The landlord says that this is because the neighbours are scared to come and give evidence. The Tribunal cannot act unless it has evidence directly from the people who saw or heard the antisocial behaviour, or other compelling corroborative evidence such as photographs or videos which show the antisocial behaviour. The Tribunal cannot act only on what the landlord has been told by neighbours. That is hearsay evidence. Although, the Tribunal can accept hearsay evidence it is always given much less weight than evidence given by the person who was there, because the person who was there can answer questions about what they saw or heard, and the Adjudicator can make an assessment on the witness’s credibility. d. The tenant claimed that the second and third notices were delivered on the same day 1 . The landlord disputes that but did not have evidence from the person who delivered the notices to confirm the delivery dates.
The application is dismissed.
Landlords should be aware that they have the burden of proving that a tenant is engaging in antisocial behaviour. That means that neighbours or other third parties may need to give evidence and the landlord should provide any documentary evidence such as photographs or video recordings to support their claim. A landlord who is unable to meet the evidential burden will not be able to prove their claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4675470 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 1, 99 Waltham Road, Sydenham, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4675470 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 1, 99 Waltham Road, Sydenham, Christchurch

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