What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4812938?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Mei Varnam at Unit/Flat 11, 33 Vauxhall Road, Devonport,

How much money was awarded in case 4812938?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4812938?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4812938?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10076834-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4812938?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Mei Varnam at Unit/Flat 11, 33 Vauxhall Road, Devonport,

How much money was awarded in case 4812938?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4812938?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4812938?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10076834-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 11, 33 Vauxhall Road, Devonport, Auckland 0624 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4812938 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Mei Varnam at Unit/Flat 11, 33 Vauxhall Road, Devonport, Auckland 0624 is terminated, and possession is granted to Haumaru Housing Limited Partnership at 11:59pm on Wednesday 13 March 2024.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend. The notice of hearing was sent to the tenant to her postal address and the landlord also emailed the notice of hearing to the tenant’s daughter. The daughter confirmed receipt and that the tenant’s son may attend the hearing with the tenant. Termination and possession
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.
The landlord states that the tenant has engaged in anti-social behaviour that is distressing and intimidating to other tenants and that it has issued three separate 14-day notices to the tenant for anti-social behaviour in a 90-day period.
On 17 January 2024, the tenant was issued with the first 14-day notice for instigating an altercation with the tenant from unit 12 and that tenant’s family, on 15 January 2024, and then made personal insults to the Village Manager.
On 1 February 2024, the tenant was issued with the second 14-day notice for being verbally abusive to the tenant from unit 8 in relation to a cat bowl left out with food in it.
On 12 February 2024, the tenant was issued with the third 14-day notice in less than a 90-day period. This notice was for intimidating behaviour the tenant engaged in when interacting with the tenant from unit 8 on 8 February 2024.
The landlord made the application to the Tribunal on 20 February 2024, requesting that the tenancy be terminated, and it be granted possession as it cannot have the other tenants in the village being threatened, intimidated and distressed by the tenant’s inappropriate and anti-social conduct. This application was made within 28 days of the third 14-day notice.
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 considered the evidence presented by the landlord as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant. 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.
I therefore grant the landlord termination of the tenancy and possession of the premises.

Order

The tenancy of Mei Varnam at Unit/Flat 11, 33 Vauxhall Road, Devonport, Auckland 0624 is terminated, and possession is granted to Haumaru Housing Limited Partnership at 11:59pm on Wednesday 13 March 2024.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend. The notice of hearing was sent to the tenant to her postal address and the landlord also emailed the notice of hearing to the tenant’s daughter. The daughter confirmed receipt and that the tenant’s son may attend the hearing with the tenant. Termination and possession
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.
The landlord states that the tenant has engaged in anti-social behaviour that is distressing and intimidating to other tenants and that it has issued three separate 14-day notices to the tenant for anti-social behaviour in a 90-day period.
On 17 January 2024, the tenant was issued with the first 14-day notice for instigating an altercation with the tenant from unit 12 and that tenant’s family, on 15 January 2024, and then made personal insults to the Village Manager.
On 1 February 2024, the tenant was issued with the second 14-day notice for being verbally abusive to the tenant from unit 8 in relation to a cat bowl left out with food in it.
On 12 February 2024, the tenant was issued with the third 14-day notice in less than a 90-day period. This notice was for intimidating behaviour the tenant engaged in when interacting with the tenant from unit 8 on 8 February 2024.
The landlord made the application to the Tribunal on 20 February 2024, requesting that the tenancy be terminated, and it be granted possession as it cannot have the other tenants in the village being threatened, intimidated and distressed by the tenant’s inappropriate and anti-social conduct. This application was made within 28 days of the third 14-day notice.
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 considered the evidence presented by the landlord as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant. 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.
I therefore grant the landlord termination of the tenancy and possession of the premises.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4812938 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 11, 33 Vauxhall Road, Devonport, Auckland 0624

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4812938 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 11, 33 Vauxhall Road, Devonport, Auckland 0624

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