What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4677069?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Dominique Brooke Anderson at 62A Blockhouse Bay Road,

How much money was awarded in case 4677069?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677069?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9589498-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4677069?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Dominique Brooke Anderson at 62A Blockhouse Bay Road,

How much money was awarded in case 4677069?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677069?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9589498-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

62A Blockhouse Bay Road, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4677069 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Dominique Brooke Anderson at 62A Blockhouse Bay Road, Avondale, Auckland 1026 is terminated, and possession is granted to Crystal Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts Mt Roskill As Agent For Vishal Agarwal, at
59 pm on Sunday 12 November 2023.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenant did not.
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: a. That in the two weeks leading up to 25 June 2023, a neighbour was blocked from her driveway three times by a car belonging to Ms Anderson or one of her guests. On each occasion the neighbour had to ask Ms Anderson to move the car. One of these occasions was at 11.30 pm one night, and another was so the neighbour could pick up her daughter from school. An email from the affected neighbour has been provided to the Tribunal. b. That on the night of Tuesday 15 August 2023 loud music was being played at Ms Anderson’s property. A neighbour approached them at 10.30 pm requesting the volume be turned down, and then again after 11.00 pm. The music was turned back up again on each occasion and was still being played loudly at 2.00 am. A confirmation from Auckland Council for Noise dated 15.08.2023 at 3.42 am, is included in the application. An email from an affected neighbour has been provided to the Tribunal. c. That on the afternoon of 25 August 2023, a person at Ms Anderson’s property blocked the shared driveway with a black bin. When the other person beeped their horn, a person from Ms Anderson’s property came out yelling and screaming, threatened the other person and started banging on their gate. The police were called and attended at 11.30 pm. Two emails from neighbours and a Police Acknowledgement Form have been provided to the Tribunal.
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.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
Because Crystal Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts Mt Roskill As Agent For Vishal Agarwal has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of Dominique Brooke Anderson at 62A Blockhouse Bay Road, Avondale, Auckland 1026 is terminated, and possession is granted to Crystal Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts Mt Roskill As Agent For Vishal Agarwal, at
59 pm on Sunday 12 November 2023.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenant did not.
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: a. That in the two weeks leading up to 25 June 2023, a neighbour was blocked from her driveway three times by a car belonging to Ms Anderson or one of her guests. On each occasion the neighbour had to ask Ms Anderson to move the car. One of these occasions was at 11.30 pm one night, and another was so the neighbour could pick up her daughter from school. An email from the affected neighbour has been provided to the Tribunal. b. That on the night of Tuesday 15 August 2023 loud music was being played at Ms Anderson’s property. A neighbour approached them at 10.30 pm requesting the volume be turned down, and then again after 11.00 pm. The music was turned back up again on each occasion and was still being played loudly at 2.00 am. A confirmation from Auckland Council for Noise dated 15.08.2023 at 3.42 am, is included in the application. An email from an affected neighbour has been provided to the Tribunal. c. That on the afternoon of 25 August 2023, a person at Ms Anderson’s property blocked the shared driveway with a black bin. When the other person beeped their horn, a person from Ms Anderson’s property came out yelling and screaming, threatened the other person and started banging on their gate. The police were called and attended at 11.30 pm. Two emails from neighbours and a Police Acknowledgement Form have been provided to the Tribunal.
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.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
Because Crystal Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts Mt Roskill As Agent For Vishal Agarwal has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677069 — Harassment at 62A Blockhouse Bay Road, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677069 — Harassment at 62A Blockhouse Bay Road, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions