What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4744210?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4744210?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4744210?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4744210?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9724796-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4744210?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4744210?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4744210?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4744210?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9724796-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

50A Taylor Road, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4744210 — Harassment

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.
The onus is on the landlord to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities.

Is there a tenancy between the parties?

As there is no written tenancy agreement in this matter the Tribunal must first establish whether a tenancy exists.
Section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that a tenancy agreement must be in writing and signed but notwithstanding this section 13C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides as follows: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other enactment, no tenancy agreement, or variation or renewal of a tenancy agreement, shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing”
The parties agreed that the tenant moved into the home on 16 December 2021 and that the agreed rent was $380 per week. This is also evidenced by the rent summary provided by the landlord. The parties advised that the premises are a rear one-bedroom unit with a sunroom.
The landlord stated that a tenancy agreement was drafted but never signed. He stated that he refused to sign the tenancy agreement until he received a bond from the tenant. The tenant stated that Work and Income would not give him the money for the bond until he showed them a tenancy agreement. As a result of this no tenancy agreement was signed and no bond paid. The landlord stated that he has lost the draft agreement.
Problems seem to have arisen between the parties following the tenant having boarders move into the unit in April 2023. The tenant stated he notified the landlord of his boarders moving in, and the landlord said it was ok. The landlord denies being notified and claims the tenant is subletting the premises.
There may be a term of a tenancy agreement that expressly prohibits subletting see section 44 RTA, however, in the absence of a written agreement there is no evidence of this term. The tenant claims that the landlord consented to his boarders and that in any event he is not subletting the unit as he continues to live there and the boarders contribute to the rent, power and food expenses.
Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that a tenancy exists between the landlord and tenant for the unit at a weekly rent of $380.00. I am not satisfied the landlord has proved any extra terms to the tenancy beyond the obligations that both parties have under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is now an issue between the boarders and the tenant as they have recently redirected their board from the tenant to the landlord. This is a matter between the tenant and the boarders which is not before me today.

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.
However, the Tribunal must not make the order if satisfied that doing so would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred, or the notices were given.
The landlord produced four notices. The first notice is dated 30 September 2023 and refers to drunk and disorderly behaviour. The second notice is dated 12 November 2023 and states that the Police attended the premises and removed the tenant but does not refer to the behaviour alleged. The third notice is dated 13 November 2023 and refers to partying and loud music. The fourth notice was dated 14 November 2023 and refers to the Police attending the front house looking for an occupant of the rear house. The landlord produced no evidence in support of the behaviour claimed. The tenant claimed that the first three notices were all served on 13 November 2023. The first three notices all record a delivery date of 13/11/23.
The tenant disputed the claims made in the notices. He stated that an issue arose in November when he had to go to Middlemore Hospital and as a result breached his bail conditions but that this was resolved.
I consider it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the notices were given as the records show that three notices were given to the tenant on the same day.
It is clear from the wording of the legislation requiring notices to be sent after each anti-social occasion claimed, with advice to the tenant of the right to challenge the notice, that it was intended that tenants be given an opportunity to rectify the situation.
Giving three notices without the tenant having an opportunity to rectify the situation or challenge the notice would be inconsistent with that intention.
If Parliament had wanted to allow landlords to issue three notices at the same time, then it would have worded these provisions differently.
For these reasons, I cannot be satisfied that the landlord has established the grounds for termination under this section, and the application is therefore dismissed.

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.
The onus is on the landlord to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities.

Is there a tenancy between the parties?

As there is no written tenancy agreement in this matter the Tribunal must first establish whether a tenancy exists.
Section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that a tenancy agreement must be in writing and signed but notwithstanding this section 13C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides as follows: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other enactment, no tenancy agreement, or variation or renewal of a tenancy agreement, shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing”
The parties agreed that the tenant moved into the home on 16 December 2021 and that the agreed rent was $380 per week. This is also evidenced by the rent summary provided by the landlord. The parties advised that the premises are a rear one-bedroom unit with a sunroom.
The landlord stated that a tenancy agreement was drafted but never signed. He stated that he refused to sign the tenancy agreement until he received a bond from the tenant. The tenant stated that Work and Income would not give him the money for the bond until he showed them a tenancy agreement. As a result of this no tenancy agreement was signed and no bond paid. The landlord stated that he has lost the draft agreement.
Problems seem to have arisen between the parties following the tenant having boarders move into the unit in April 2023. The tenant stated he notified the landlord of his boarders moving in, and the landlord said it was ok. The landlord denies being notified and claims the tenant is subletting the premises.
There may be a term of a tenancy agreement that expressly prohibits subletting see section 44 RTA, however, in the absence of a written agreement there is no evidence of this term. The tenant claims that the landlord consented to his boarders and that in any event he is not subletting the unit as he continues to live there and the boarders contribute to the rent, power and food expenses.
Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that a tenancy exists between the landlord and tenant for the unit at a weekly rent of $380.00. I am not satisfied the landlord has proved any extra terms to the tenancy beyond the obligations that both parties have under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is now an issue between the boarders and the tenant as they have recently redirected their board from the tenant to the landlord. This is a matter between the tenant and the boarders which is not before me today.

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.
However, the Tribunal must not make the order if satisfied that doing so would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred, or the notices were given.
The landlord produced four notices. The first notice is dated 30 September 2023 and refers to drunk and disorderly behaviour. The second notice is dated 12 November 2023 and states that the Police attended the premises and removed the tenant but does not refer to the behaviour alleged. The third notice is dated 13 November 2023 and refers to partying and loud music. The fourth notice was dated 14 November 2023 and refers to the Police attending the front house looking for an occupant of the rear house. The landlord produced no evidence in support of the behaviour claimed. The tenant claimed that the first three notices were all served on 13 November 2023. The first three notices all record a delivery date of 13/11/23.
The tenant disputed the claims made in the notices. He stated that an issue arose in November when he had to go to Middlemore Hospital and as a result breached his bail conditions but that this was resolved.
I consider it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the notices were given as the records show that three notices were given to the tenant on the same day.
It is clear from the wording of the legislation requiring notices to be sent after each anti-social occasion claimed, with advice to the tenant of the right to challenge the notice, that it was intended that tenants be given an opportunity to rectify the situation.
Giving three notices without the tenant having an opportunity to rectify the situation or challenge the notice would be inconsistent with that intention.
If Parliament had wanted to allow landlords to issue three notices at the same time, then it would have worded these provisions differently.
For these reasons, I cannot be satisfied that the landlord has established the grounds for termination under this section, and the application is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4744210 — Harassment at 50A Taylor Road, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4744210 — Harassment at 50A Taylor Road, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is there a tenancy between the parties?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is there a tenancy between the parties?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is there a tenancy between the parties?

Are there grounds to terminate the tenancy for anti-social behaviour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is there a tenancy between the parties?

Are there grounds to terminate the tenancy for anti-social behaviour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions