What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4824220?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of James Buchanan at Unit/Flat 18, 403 Innes Road, Mairehau,

How much money was awarded in case 4824220?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4824220?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4824220?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10205458-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4824220?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of James Buchanan at Unit/Flat 18, 403 Innes Road, Mairehau,

How much money was awarded in case 4824220?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4824220?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4824220?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10205458-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 18, 403 Innes Road, Mairehau, Christchurch 8052, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4824220 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of James Buchanan at Unit/Flat 18, 403 Innes Road, Mairehau, Christchurch 8052, Innes Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 5pm on Monday, 29 April 2024.
James Buchanan must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.

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 landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is yelling and screaming of an abusive nature and at such volume it woke other residents of this social housing complex. The extent of the disruption resulted in police calls outs to the premises and each instance of the yelling and screaming went on for some time.
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. See s55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 heard from two other residents of this complex and the tenant. I heard a partial recording by one of the other residents of the complex. The landlord also presented a record of police callouts to the property. The disruptions were loud and angry, resulting in 5 police callouts in February 2024. They caused distress to other residents at the complex and, on occasion, woke residents from their sleep. The disturbances reasonably caused alarm or distress that was more than minor.
The tenant did not dispute that there had been disruptions. He apologised for them, but also noted that he felt targeted in that other tenants had also behaved poorly. 1 He said that the disturbances arose because of an inability to cope with some complex circumstances and a lack of support from agencies. The landlord claimed that it had attempted to provide support and sustain the tenancy; the tenant did not accept that and said that what help had been provided did not work. 1 He also said he felt targeted because another person at the premises (who was not a tenant but who was there with is permission) also created the issue. This person moved in after the tenancy started and was not a tenant. Nothing turns on that, but it was important to the tenant as he felt that the other person should also have been a tenant and been named in the application.
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. In making this finding, I have considered the tenant’s explanation for the behaviour, and weighed that against the frequency of the behaviour, the severity of the yelling and screaming and the impact on other tenants. I also note that there was no evidence to corroborate the tenant’s explanations. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application. The tenancy must be terminated.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy. See s55A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord proposed a two-week timeframe for termination. The tenant asked for three to four weeks. I these situations, landlords may be granted immediate termination. I accept the landlord’s proposal of 2 weeks is reasonable in this case and make the Order accordingly.
As the landlord was the successful party, I award reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of James Buchanan at Unit/Flat 18, 403 Innes Road, Mairehau, Christchurch 8052, Innes Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 5pm on Monday, 29 April 2024.
James Buchanan must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.

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 landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is yelling and screaming of an abusive nature and at such volume it woke other residents of this social housing complex. The extent of the disruption resulted in police calls outs to the premises and each instance of the yelling and screaming went on for some time.
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. See s55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 heard from two other residents of this complex and the tenant. I heard a partial recording by one of the other residents of the complex. The landlord also presented a record of police callouts to the property. The disruptions were loud and angry, resulting in 5 police callouts in February 2024. They caused distress to other residents at the complex and, on occasion, woke residents from their sleep. The disturbances reasonably caused alarm or distress that was more than minor.
The tenant did not dispute that there had been disruptions. He apologised for them, but also noted that he felt targeted in that other tenants had also behaved poorly. 1 He said that the disturbances arose because of an inability to cope with some complex circumstances and a lack of support from agencies. The landlord claimed that it had attempted to provide support and sustain the tenancy; the tenant did not accept that and said that what help had been provided did not work. 1 He also said he felt targeted because another person at the premises (who was not a tenant but who was there with is permission) also created the issue. This person moved in after the tenancy started and was not a tenant. Nothing turns on that, but it was important to the tenant as he felt that the other person should also have been a tenant and been named in the application.
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. In making this finding, I have considered the tenant’s explanation for the behaviour, and weighed that against the frequency of the behaviour, the severity of the yelling and screaming and the impact on other tenants. I also note that there was no evidence to corroborate the tenant’s explanations. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application. The tenancy must be terminated.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy. See s55A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord proposed a two-week timeframe for termination. The tenant asked for three to four weeks. I these situations, landlords may be granted immediate termination. I accept the landlord’s proposal of 2 weeks is reasonable in this case and make the Order accordingly.
As the landlord was the successful party, I award reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4824220 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 18, 403 Innes Road, Mairehau, Christchurch 8052,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4824220 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 18, 403 Innes Road, Mairehau, Christchurch 8052,

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