What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4832541?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Martin James at 132C King Street, Temuka, Temuka 7920 is

How much money was awarded in case 4832541?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4832541?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4832541?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10252405-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4832541?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Martin James at 132C King Street, Temuka, Temuka 7920 is

How much money was awarded in case 4832541?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4832541?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4832541?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10252405-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

132C King Street, Temuka, Temuka 7920 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4832541 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Martin James at 132C King Street, Temuka, Temuka 7920 is terminated, and possession is granted to Warwick John Stubbs, at 11.59pm, Friday 3 May 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
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, a physical confrontation between a visitor at the tenant’s home and a neighbour, abusive language on several occasions and throwing stones onto neighbouring roofs and cars. The tenant has also sent an abusive email threatening harm to the neighbours.
At the hearing the tenant acknowledged that he had used abusive language against a neighbour. He also acknowledged that the person involved in the fight where Police attended was visiting a person who was staying in a tent on his premises at his invitation.
The landlord has produced evidence from neighbours who are fearful of the tenant and possible retribution.
At the hearing the tenant denied being present for two of the occasions referred to by the landlord. The tenant had two witnesses, both of whom are friends of his, saying that the tenant was not present as he was elsewhere carrying out gardening. When I asked the witnesses the dates that the tenant was not there, they could not tell me the exact dates. Instead they said that they remember when the tenant got the notice and the dates referred to.
One of the neighbours of the premises is a restaurant and the restaurant owner has provided evidence of complaints from both himself, his staff and customers who have been abused by the tenant. Some of the customers and staff also witnessed the physical altercation between a guest of the tenant where Police were called.
The landlord has produced evidence from witnesses who are neutral whereas the tenant’s witnesses are friends of his. On balance I prefer the evidence produced by the landlord. I accept that the tenant may have been away from his residence on occasion but not necessarily on the dates referred to. Also, most of the witnesses complaining of his behaviour are likely to know him given the proximity of the tenancy to the restaurant and other neighbours.
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 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.

Order

The tenancy of Martin James at 132C King Street, Temuka, Temuka 7920 is terminated, and possession is granted to Warwick John Stubbs, at 11.59pm, Friday 3 May 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
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, a physical confrontation between a visitor at the tenant’s home and a neighbour, abusive language on several occasions and throwing stones onto neighbouring roofs and cars. The tenant has also sent an abusive email threatening harm to the neighbours.
At the hearing the tenant acknowledged that he had used abusive language against a neighbour. He also acknowledged that the person involved in the fight where Police attended was visiting a person who was staying in a tent on his premises at his invitation.
The landlord has produced evidence from neighbours who are fearful of the tenant and possible retribution.
At the hearing the tenant denied being present for two of the occasions referred to by the landlord. The tenant had two witnesses, both of whom are friends of his, saying that the tenant was not present as he was elsewhere carrying out gardening. When I asked the witnesses the dates that the tenant was not there, they could not tell me the exact dates. Instead they said that they remember when the tenant got the notice and the dates referred to.
One of the neighbours of the premises is a restaurant and the restaurant owner has provided evidence of complaints from both himself, his staff and customers who have been abused by the tenant. Some of the customers and staff also witnessed the physical altercation between a guest of the tenant where Police were called.
The landlord has produced evidence from witnesses who are neutral whereas the tenant’s witnesses are friends of his. On balance I prefer the evidence produced by the landlord. I accept that the tenant may have been away from his residence on occasion but not necessarily on the dates referred to. Also, most of the witnesses complaining of his behaviour are likely to know him given the proximity of the tenancy to the restaurant and other neighbours.
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 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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4832541 — Harassment at 132C King Street, Temuka, Temuka 7920

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4832541 — Harassment at 132C King Street, Temuka, Temuka 7920

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions