What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4812839?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Isaac William Michael Whyte at Unit/Flat 101, 9 East Street,

How much money was awarded in case 4812839?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4812839?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4812839?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10036721-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4812839?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Isaac William Michael Whyte at Unit/Flat 101, 9 East Street,

How much money was awarded in case 4812839?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4812839?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4812839?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10036721-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 101, 9 East Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4812839 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Isaac William Michael Whyte at Unit/Flat 101, 9 East Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110 is terminated, and possession is granted to Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Eleven East Limited (Karl And Erna), at midnight on Monday, 11 March 2024.
Isaac William Michael Whyte must pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Eleven East Limited (Karl And Erna) $20.44 immediately, for the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today.
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 was: • Violent communications with his partner causing damage to the apartment and excessive noise on 1 February 2024 at 5.30pm. The Police were called. • Banging, yelling, and screaming and a young girl saying “stop hitting me” on 11 February 2024 at 11.30pm. The Police were called. • The tenant yelling at someone in his apartment and swearing on 14 February 2024 at 1pm. The Tribunal listened to an audio of the argument at the hearing, which confirmed there was loud swearing audible from nearby apartments. • An incident on 21 February 2024 when the tenant and his partner had a heated argument while a tradesperson was at the property, which made the tradesperson feel unsafe.
Notices under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 were served following the first 3 occasions of 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.
The tenant did not dispute the content of the notices served by the landlord.
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.
The tenant’s partner is said to have caused the damage to the premises (the cook top was badly smashed and there was damage to a kitchen drawer), but she was a named resident on the tenancy agreement at that stage. The tenant permitted his partner to stay at the premises, despite her removal from the tenancy agreement, following the first instance of anti-social behaviour on 1 February 2024.
I find that it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose, and the notices were given. The tenant played a part in the arguments that took place. 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 deciding whether to make an order for termination of the tenancy. However, it was discussed and agreed at the hearing that the tenancy will end in a week to give the tenant time to find emergency accommodation. Filing fee
The landlord’s application has succeeded. I award the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of Isaac William Michael Whyte at Unit/Flat 101, 9 East Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110 is terminated, and possession is granted to Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Eleven East Limited (Karl And Erna), at midnight on Monday, 11 March 2024.
Isaac William Michael Whyte must pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Eleven East Limited (Karl And Erna) $20.44 immediately, for the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today.
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 was: • Violent communications with his partner causing damage to the apartment and excessive noise on 1 February 2024 at 5.30pm. The Police were called. • Banging, yelling, and screaming and a young girl saying “stop hitting me” on 11 February 2024 at 11.30pm. The Police were called. • The tenant yelling at someone in his apartment and swearing on 14 February 2024 at 1pm. The Tribunal listened to an audio of the argument at the hearing, which confirmed there was loud swearing audible from nearby apartments. • An incident on 21 February 2024 when the tenant and his partner had a heated argument while a tradesperson was at the property, which made the tradesperson feel unsafe.
Notices under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 were served following the first 3 occasions of 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.
The tenant did not dispute the content of the notices served by the landlord.
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.
The tenant’s partner is said to have caused the damage to the premises (the cook top was badly smashed and there was damage to a kitchen drawer), but she was a named resident on the tenancy agreement at that stage. The tenant permitted his partner to stay at the premises, despite her removal from the tenancy agreement, following the first instance of anti-social behaviour on 1 February 2024.
I find that it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose, and the notices were given. The tenant played a part in the arguments that took place. 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 deciding whether to make an order for termination of the tenancy. However, it was discussed and agreed at the hearing that the tenancy will end in a week to give the tenant time to find emergency accommodation. Filing fee
The landlord’s application has succeeded. I award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4812839 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 101, 9 East Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4812839 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 101, 9 East Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions