What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4760758?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Lima Haimona at Unit/Flat 7, 44 Malfroy Road, Victoria, Rotorua

How much money was awarded in case 4760758?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4760758?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4760758?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9820566-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4760758?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Lima Haimona at Unit/Flat 7, 44 Malfroy Road, Victoria, Rotorua

How much money was awarded in case 4760758?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4760758?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4760758?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9820566-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 44 Malfroy Road, Victoria, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4760758 — Harassment

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The applicant landlord attended the hearing. Ms Haimona did not but had a support person attend on her behalf.

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 loud music very late at night, abusive behaviour and fights including assaults, yelling and screaming.

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 considered the submission that it is the tenant’s family that are responsible for the disturbances but note tenants are liable for persons at the premises with their consent. I have also considered that since the application was made two further serious breaches have occurred.

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 and note in that regards that plans are in place to support the tenant relocating to a more suitable environment.

Reasons

The applicant landlord attended the hearing. Ms Haimona did not but had a support person attend on her behalf.

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is loud music very late at night, abusive behaviour and fights including assaults, yelling and screaming.

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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4760758 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 7, 44 Malfroy Road, Victoria, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4760758 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 7, 44 Malfroy Road, Victoria, Rotorua 3010

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