What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4721612?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Karen Heurea at 106 Firth Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

How much money was awarded in case 4721612?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4721612?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4721612?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9634934-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4721612?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Karen Heurea at 106 Firth Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

How much money was awarded in case 4721612?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4721612?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4721612?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9634934-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

106 Firth Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4721612 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4721612 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant bought a support person with her.

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 lot of drunken behaviour, loud music, multiple complaints from neighbours, police called, party’s in a shared driveway, threats of violence.

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 agreed with all the claims made by the landlord. She said the behaviour was mostly from people she had at her property, and it was often her that called the Police. She had tried to stop the behaviour but had not been able to.

The landlord said that she had no problems with the tenant and her children who had been at the premises for about 4 years. This problem has recently arisen, and she believed it was from the people the tenant had visiting her.

The landlord had initially issued 14-day notice on 24 June 2023, but the problem was not remedied. The landlord then issued 3 anti-social behaviour notices in October 2023.

The landlord also provided a copy of the tenancy agreement and copies of some of the neighbours’ complaints.

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.

Because Nz.Co Limited as agent for owner has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4721612 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

The tenancy of Karen Heurea at 106 Firth Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 is terminated, and possession is granted to Nz.Co Limited as agent for owner, at 12pm, midnight, Monday 27 November 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant bought a support person with her.
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 lot of drunken behaviour, loud music, multiple complaints from neighbours, police called, party’s in a shared driveway, threats of violence.
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 agreed with all the claims made by the landlord. She said the behaviour was mostly from people she had at her property, and it was often her that called the Police. She had tried to stop the behaviour but had not been able to.
The landlord said that she had no problems with the tenant and her children who had been at the premises for about 4 years. This problem has recently arisen, and she believed it was from the people the tenant had visiting her.
The landlord had initially issued 14-day notice on 24 June 2023, but the problem was not remedied. The landlord then issued 3 anti-social behaviour notices in October 2023.
The landlord also provided a copy of the tenancy agreement and copies of some of the neighbours’ complaints.
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.
Because Nz.Co Limited as agent for owner has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4721612 — Tenancy dispute at 106 Firth Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4721612 — Tenancy dispute at 106 Firth Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions