What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4783057?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Taani Taufa at 36 Veronica Place, 92 Breens Road, Bishopdale,

How much money was awarded in case 4783057?

To Otautahi Community Housing Trust,…: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4783057?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4783057?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9965819-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4783057?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Taani Taufa at 36 Veronica Place, 92 Breens Road, Bishopdale,

How much money was awarded in case 4783057?

To Otautahi Community Housing Trust,…: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4783057?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4783057?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9965819-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 36 Veronica Place, 92 Breens Road Bishopdale, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4783057 — Harassment

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4783057. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Friday 23 February 2024. 2. Taani Taufa is to pay Otautahi Community	$20.44		to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Friday 23 February 2024. 2. Taani Taufa is to pay Otautahi Community

Order

The tenancy of Taani Taufa at 36 Veronica Place, 92 Breens Road, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8051 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Friday 23 February 2024.
Taani Taufa is to pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $20.44 immediately.

Reasons

Mr Olds and Mr Woodbury attended on behalf of the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
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 behaviours referred to in the anti-social behaviour notices follow a long series of incidents concerning Mr Taufa. Information by way of background was provided to the Tribunal including photographs of damage to property, previous notices to remedy and police call out information relating to the tenancy address.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is as follows: i.At about 2.30pm on 27 November 2023 the tenant walked along a path beside the outdoor area of another unit and urinated against a tree in that garden. Two other tenants of the complex witnessed this behaviour. The two witnesses gave evidence in person at the Tribunal. One said they found the behaviour “intimidating” and the other found it “creepy” and “felt violated”. ii.At about 11.30am on 12 December 2023 the tenant and his partner were involved in an incident which resulted in her car window being smashed by the tenant. Three witnesses gave evidence at the Tribunal in person in relation to this event and described the glass left in the carpark area as a consequence. Police were contacted about this incident at 10.50am and attended the scene. The call out information confirms that the car window was smashed. iii.At about 5.00am on 12 January 2024, neighbours awoke to screaming and glass smashing from the tenant’s unit. Windows were smashed leaving broken glass around the property. Three witnesses gave evidence confirming this. Additional damage to property during this incident included damage to a fence and a recently planted tree. Police were contacted about this incident at 8.51am and attended the scene. Their records state that there was “glass and blood everywhere.”
The witness evidence provided confirms that the residents of the Veronica Place complex are frightened and intimidated by the tenant’s anti-social behaviour.
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 Act, 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.
As the application has been wholly successful, the tenant is to compensate the landlord for the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4783057. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Friday 23 February 2024. 2. Taani Taufa is to pay Otautahi Community	$20.44		to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Friday 23 February 2024. 2. Taani Taufa is to pay Otautahi Community

Order

The tenancy of Taani Taufa at 36 Veronica Place, 92 Breens Road, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8051 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Friday 23 February 2024.
Taani Taufa is to pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $20.44 immediately.

Reasons

Mr Olds and Mr Woodbury attended on behalf of the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
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 behaviours referred to in the anti-social behaviour notices follow a long series of incidents concerning Mr Taufa. Information by way of background was provided to the Tribunal including photographs of damage to property, previous notices to remedy and police call out information relating to the tenancy address.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is as follows: i.At about 2.30pm on 27 November 2023 the tenant walked along a path beside the outdoor area of another unit and urinated against a tree in that garden. Two other tenants of the complex witnessed this behaviour. The two witnesses gave evidence in person at the Tribunal. One said they found the behaviour “intimidating” and the other found it “creepy” and “felt violated”. ii.At about 11.30am on 12 December 2023 the tenant and his partner were involved in an incident which resulted in her car window being smashed by the tenant. Three witnesses gave evidence at the Tribunal in person in relation to this event and described the glass left in the carpark area as a consequence. Police were contacted about this incident at 10.50am and attended the scene. The call out information confirms that the car window was smashed. iii.At about 5.00am on 12 January 2024, neighbours awoke to screaming and glass smashing from the tenant’s unit. Windows were smashed leaving broken glass around the property. Three witnesses gave evidence confirming this. Additional damage to property during this incident included damage to a fence and a recently planted tree. Police were contacted about this incident at 8.51am and attended the scene. Their records state that there was “glass and blood everywhere.”
The witness evidence provided confirms that the residents of the Veronica Place complex are frightened and intimidated by the tenant’s anti-social behaviour.
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 Act, 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.
As the application has been wholly successful, the tenant is to compensate the landlord for the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4783057 — Harassment at Unit 36 Veronica Place, 92 Breens Road Bishopdale,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4783057 — Harassment at Unit 36 Veronica Place, 92 Breens Road Bishopdale,

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