What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4697769?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Valance Poutoko Manawa Solomon Tauhinu at 11A Leighton

How much money was awarded in case 4697769?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4697769?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4697769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9580950-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4697769?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Valance Poutoko Manawa Solomon Tauhinu at 11A Leighton

How much money was awarded in case 4697769?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4697769?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4697769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9580950-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11A Leighton Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4697769 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Valance Poutoko Manawa Solomon Tauhinu at 11A Leighton Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 is terminated, and possession is granted to Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Greg Jones, at 23:59 hours Sunday 26 November 2023.
Valance Poutoko Manawa Solomon Tauhinu must pay Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Greg Jones $20.44 immediately, being the filing application fee.

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.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is an ongoing problem, ranging from loud music to yelling, as well as some disputes that required police attendance. A prior landlord application citing the same reason for termination was dismissed on 6 September 2023 as the three earlier notices that formed that application were all served on the same day.
The landlord has subsequently served three further notices: on 8 September, 11 September, and 28 September. More recent problems were recounted at the hearing.
Supporting emails from impacted neighbours confirmed the reasons for the notices.
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. The tenant had expressed at the prior hearing a desire to discuss the problems with the neighbours or change behaviours. Unfortunately, this has not improved the situation. I note that a number of the cited anti-social behaviours pertain to behaviours of flatmates or others, rather than the tenant. He understood the responsibility and accountability that comes with the status of tenant.
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. Application filing fee
Because Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Greg Jones has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of Valance Poutoko Manawa Solomon Tauhinu at 11A Leighton Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 is terminated, and possession is granted to Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Greg Jones, at 23:59 hours Sunday 26 November 2023.
Valance Poutoko Manawa Solomon Tauhinu must pay Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Greg Jones $20.44 immediately, being the filing application fee.

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.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is an ongoing problem, ranging from loud music to yelling, as well as some disputes that required police attendance. A prior landlord application citing the same reason for termination was dismissed on 6 September 2023 as the three earlier notices that formed that application were all served on the same day.
The landlord has subsequently served three further notices: on 8 September, 11 September, and 28 September. More recent problems were recounted at the hearing.
Supporting emails from impacted neighbours confirmed the reasons for the notices.
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. The tenant had expressed at the prior hearing a desire to discuss the problems with the neighbours or change behaviours. Unfortunately, this has not improved the situation. I note that a number of the cited anti-social behaviours pertain to behaviours of flatmates or others, rather than the tenant. He understood the responsibility and accountability that comes with the status of tenant.
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. Application filing fee
Because Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Greg Jones has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4697769 — Harassment at 11A Leighton Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4697769 — Harassment at 11A Leighton Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

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