What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4851300?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Eva Ranger at 35 Armitage Road, Wellsford, Wellsford 0900 is

How much money was awarded in case 4851300?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4851300?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4851300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10515682-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4851300?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Eva Ranger at 35 Armitage Road, Wellsford, Wellsford 0900 is

How much money was awarded in case 4851300?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4851300?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4851300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10515682-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

35 Armitage Road, Wellsford, Wellsford 0900 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4851300 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4851300 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

The tenancy of Eva Ranger at 35 Armitage Road, Wellsford, Wellsford 0900 is terminated, and possession is granted to Inspire Property Management Ltd As Agent For Aionion Ltd, at 11:59pm on Friday 5 July 2024.
Eva Ranger must pay Inspire Property Management Ltd As Agent For Aionion Ltd $20.44 immediately, calculated s set out in the table below:

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: a. Kids and parents screaming, shouting, yelling, swearing and banging doors loudly all day, causing social disturbances to the neighbourhood that prevent neighbours from having quiet enjoyment of their property and impacting their ability to work from home due to the level and frequncy of extreme noise coming from the property; b. Motor vehicles going up and down the driveway at speed during the day and at night, and speeding as the vehicles turn on to the road. The speeding vehicles set off security lights that disturb the neighbours in the evenings and cause safety risks to the children in the neighbourhood during the day; c. Loud music during the day and sometimes in the evenings; d. Police being called to the premise because of the kids and parents screaming, shouting, yelling and swearing and the neighbours being concerned that someone inside the house may be being hurt due to the volume and frequency of the noises being complained about.
The landlord has issued the tenant seven fourteen-day notices for anti-social behaviour since 16 January 2024. These seven notices have resulted from eight written complaints from the tenant’s neighbours.
In the 90 days from 9 February to 6 May 2024, the landlord has issued the following seven fourteen-day notices: a. 9 February 2024 for reports from neighbours about shouting and screaming and playing the TV very loudly until midnight on 9 February 2024 and cars going up and down the driveway all night causing disturbances to the neighbours; b. 15 February 2024 because of loud noise all day, specifically shouting and loud music all day and car driving up and down the driveway causing nuisance that is more than minor to the neighbours on 15 February 2024; c. 20 February 2024 for continuous shouting and loud noise all day and loud boom music and numerous cars turning up all day and night as well as a complaint that on 16 January 2024, there was a major dispute on the roadside in front of the premise, arguments, shouting and cars doing wheelies. This conduct frightened the neighbours and caused safety concerns for the neighbours children; d. 27 February 2024 for continual shouting, yelling and swearing all day on 25 February 2024 causing nuisance that is more than minor to the neighbours; e. 25 March 2024 for continuous disruption all day to the neighbourhood from screaming, shouting, swearing on 25 March 2024; f. 1 May 2024 because of continual loud noise at 3:58pm on 1 May 2024 consisting of shouting, screaming and swearing and people (visitors) driving up and down the driveway around 20 times causing major nuisance for the neighbours; and g. 6 May 2024 because the neighbours had called the Police again as there was screaming and the tenant’s being out of control again at 3:06pm on 6 May 2024.
These fourteen day notices are all numbered, clearly describe which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and who has engaged in this anti- social behaviour as well as the date, time and location of the anti-social behaviours and how many notices the landlord has given to the tenant in the same 90 day period, and advising the tenant that she has a right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notices.
The landlord made its application to the Tribunal on 3 May 2024, which is less than 28 days after the 5 th 14 day notice was issued to the tenant for anti-social behaviour on 6 May 2024.
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 says: a. There is no domestic violence, or any violence in her home and neither the landlord nor the neighbours have any evidence to prove that there is violence in her home; b. The yelling, screaming, shouting and swearing is coming from her 4 year old son that has been diagnosed with autism and is under the care of a specialist paediatrician; c. She has 5 other children, 2 of which are also under 5 year of age that make some noise during the day; d. Noise control has never been called, so the noise cannot meet the threshold for noise control to attend the property; e. The Police come to the house, find the tenant has an autistic child and leave again; f. The landlord has made no attempts to get the Police information from the New Zealand Police in relation to the neighbours domestic violence allegations, and if it had it would find that there has been no domestic violence issues in the house; g. It is one neighbour making all the complaints and they have made things up as the tenant say she never plays loud music, does not speed on the driveway or the road and nor do her visitors; h. She has no more visitors than any other normal household; i. She is being discriminated against because she has six children, one of whom is autistic and experiencing behavioural problems she is trying to manage with the support of a specialist; and j. This is the first home she and the children have had in 5 years and she should not be evicted because of a nosey and complaining neighbour that has no video evidence to support the complaints.
I have considered the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I have seen eight written complaints from two different sets of neighbours that cite significant social disturbances to the neighbourhood by the tenant and her children and disruption to the quiet enjoyment of neighbouring properties due to the volume and frequency of the screaming, shouting, yelling, arguing, swearing, other loud noises such as music, TV and cars coming up and down the driveway at speed all hours of the day and night from the tenant’s property.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that most of this noise relates to her trying to control her autistic son and his siblings, that there is no domestic violence occurring at the house and that the frequent Police visits are solely because of the neighbours calling the Police.
I do not accept that the level and frequency of disturbance reported to the landlord by the tenant’s neighbours is acceptable and find that this level and frequency of social disturbance to the neighbourhood is more than minor and constitutes anti-social behaviour that is impeding the tenant’s neighbours peace and quiet enjoyment of their properties over a protracted period of time.
I accept the tenant is trying to do all she can to stop the anti-social behaviour complained of and that she has been unable to make any meaningful headway into being able to stop the volume and frequency of the shouting, screaming, yelling, arguing and swearing coming from her house. I do not accept her claim that she is being discriminated against because she had a special needs child. It may be that the tenant needs to find more suitable accommodation for herself and her children that allows her the time and space required to address her children’s behavioural conduct and her own responses to that conduct without causing significant social disturbances to all those living around her.
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 also consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy, considering 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 am satisfied the landlord has met all the criteria to justify me making orders to terminate the tenancy for the tenant’s anti-social behaviour. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because Inspire Property Management Ltd As Agent For Aionion Ltd has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4851300 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

The tenancy of Eva Ranger at 35 Armitage Road, Wellsford, Wellsford 0900 is terminated, and possession is granted to Inspire Property Management Ltd As Agent For Aionion Ltd, at 11:59pm on Friday 5 July 2024.
Eva Ranger must pay Inspire Property Management Ltd As Agent For Aionion Ltd $20.44 immediately, calculated s set out in the table below:

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: a. Kids and parents screaming, shouting, yelling, swearing and banging doors loudly all day, causing social disturbances to the neighbourhood that prevent neighbours from having quiet enjoyment of their property and impacting their ability to work from home due to the level and frequncy of extreme noise coming from the property; b. Motor vehicles going up and down the driveway at speed during the day and at night, and speeding as the vehicles turn on to the road. The speeding vehicles set off security lights that disturb the neighbours in the evenings and cause safety risks to the children in the neighbourhood during the day; c. Loud music during the day and sometimes in the evenings; d. Police being called to the premise because of the kids and parents screaming, shouting, yelling and swearing and the neighbours being concerned that someone inside the house may be being hurt due to the volume and frequency of the noises being complained about.
The landlord has issued the tenant seven fourteen-day notices for anti-social behaviour since 16 January 2024. These seven notices have resulted from eight written complaints from the tenant’s neighbours.
In the 90 days from 9 February to 6 May 2024, the landlord has issued the following seven fourteen-day notices: a. 9 February 2024 for reports from neighbours about shouting and screaming and playing the TV very loudly until midnight on 9 February 2024 and cars going up and down the driveway all night causing disturbances to the neighbours; b. 15 February 2024 because of loud noise all day, specifically shouting and loud music all day and car driving up and down the driveway causing nuisance that is more than minor to the neighbours on 15 February 2024; c. 20 February 2024 for continuous shouting and loud noise all day and loud boom music and numerous cars turning up all day and night as well as a complaint that on 16 January 2024, there was a major dispute on the roadside in front of the premise, arguments, shouting and cars doing wheelies. This conduct frightened the neighbours and caused safety concerns for the neighbours children; d. 27 February 2024 for continual shouting, yelling and swearing all day on 25 February 2024 causing nuisance that is more than minor to the neighbours; e. 25 March 2024 for continuous disruption all day to the neighbourhood from screaming, shouting, swearing on 25 March 2024; f. 1 May 2024 because of continual loud noise at 3:58pm on 1 May 2024 consisting of shouting, screaming and swearing and people (visitors) driving up and down the driveway around 20 times causing major nuisance for the neighbours; and g. 6 May 2024 because the neighbours had called the Police again as there was screaming and the tenant’s being out of control again at 3:06pm on 6 May 2024.
These fourteen day notices are all numbered, clearly describe which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and who has engaged in this anti- social behaviour as well as the date, time and location of the anti-social behaviours and how many notices the landlord has given to the tenant in the same 90 day period, and advising the tenant that she has a right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notices.
The landlord made its application to the Tribunal on 3 May 2024, which is less than 28 days after the 5 th 14 day notice was issued to the tenant for anti-social behaviour on 6 May 2024.
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 says: a. There is no domestic violence, or any violence in her home and neither the landlord nor the neighbours have any evidence to prove that there is violence in her home; b. The yelling, screaming, shouting and swearing is coming from her 4 year old son that has been diagnosed with autism and is under the care of a specialist paediatrician; c. She has 5 other children, 2 of which are also under 5 year of age that make some noise during the day; d. Noise control has never been called, so the noise cannot meet the threshold for noise control to attend the property; e. The Police come to the house, find the tenant has an autistic child and leave again; f. The landlord has made no attempts to get the Police information from the New Zealand Police in relation to the neighbours domestic violence allegations, and if it had it would find that there has been no domestic violence issues in the house; g. It is one neighbour making all the complaints and they have made things up as the tenant say she never plays loud music, does not speed on the driveway or the road and nor do her visitors; h. She has no more visitors than any other normal household; i. She is being discriminated against because she has six children, one of whom is autistic and experiencing behavioural problems she is trying to manage with the support of a specialist; and j. This is the first home she and the children have had in 5 years and she should not be evicted because of a nosey and complaining neighbour that has no video evidence to support the complaints.
I have considered the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I have seen eight written complaints from two different sets of neighbours that cite significant social disturbances to the neighbourhood by the tenant and her children and disruption to the quiet enjoyment of neighbouring properties due to the volume and frequency of the screaming, shouting, yelling, arguing, swearing, other loud noises such as music, TV and cars coming up and down the driveway at speed all hours of the day and night from the tenant’s property.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that most of this noise relates to her trying to control her autistic son and his siblings, that there is no domestic violence occurring at the house and that the frequent Police visits are solely because of the neighbours calling the Police.
I do not accept that the level and frequency of disturbance reported to the landlord by the tenant’s neighbours is acceptable and find that this level and frequency of social disturbance to the neighbourhood is more than minor and constitutes anti-social behaviour that is impeding the tenant’s neighbours peace and quiet enjoyment of their properties over a protracted period of time.
I accept the tenant is trying to do all she can to stop the anti-social behaviour complained of and that she has been unable to make any meaningful headway into being able to stop the volume and frequency of the shouting, screaming, yelling, arguing and swearing coming from her house. I do not accept her claim that she is being discriminated against because she had a special needs child. It may be that the tenant needs to find more suitable accommodation for herself and her children that allows her the time and space required to address her children’s behavioural conduct and her own responses to that conduct without causing significant social disturbances to all those living around her.
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 also consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy, considering 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 am satisfied the landlord has met all the criteria to justify me making orders to terminate the tenancy for the tenant’s anti-social behaviour. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because Inspire Property Management Ltd As Agent For Aionion Ltd has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4851300 — Tenancy dispute at 35 Armitage Road, Wellsford, Wellsford 0900

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4851300 — Tenancy dispute at 35 Armitage Road, Wellsford, Wellsford 0900

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions