What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4924375?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4924375?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4924375?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4924375?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10699895-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4924375?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4924375?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4924375?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4924375?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10699895-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Mercury Street, Milson, Palmerston North 4414 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4924375 — Harassment

Order

The application is dismissed.

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. Loud noise from music, on Saturday morning 8th June around 10 am. The music was so loud neighbours could not hear each speak. the neighbor was threatened with violence and told their cars outside would be damaged if noise control was called again. b. Shouting and breaking glass at 5.20pm on 12 June 2024 c. Morning shouting and fighting at 5AM. Morning shouting swearing and banging on the garage door at the property. This started around 4:30AM and carried on for around an hour.
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 not determined whether the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred because the landlord has not property complied with the notice requirements in three respects.
First, two notices were emailed to the tenants on 13 June 2024. It is not reasonable that a tenant receives two notices at the same time. The notices were emailed separately and were sent minutes apart, but that is not within the spirit or intent of the statute. The tenant should have received a notice about the first instance on 8 June before the second alleged instance occurred. The two notices sent on 13 June are effectively one notice about conduct that had occurred on 8 June and 12 June.
Secondly, the first notice was about conduct alleged to have occurred the day before on 12 June. The second notice was about conduct alleged to have occurred 5 days earlier on 8 June. It is not reasonable to give a tenant a notice purporting to be a second notice when the conduct precedes the first.
None of the notices advised the tenants of their right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice.
Because the Tribunal is being asked to make an order terminating based on the issuing of three notices within the prescribed period, it is important that there is strict adherence to the requirements of the Act.
I have therefore decided it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the notices were given. Observations
The landlord produced unsigned, anonymous statements from neighbours and a schedule of alleged incidents. The landlord is reminded that in any hearing if the other party disputes the incidents described in those documents, the landlord would need signed, dated evidence from named witnesses.
The tenant accepted that there were some disturbances caused by others who were living at the property and those people have now left, the tenants having given them 28 days’ notice. The tenants are reminded that notice provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act do not apply to flatmates. More importantly, the tenancy agreement contains a maximum occupancy provision and so they would have been breaching the terms of their tenancy by allowing others to live there.

Order

The application is dismissed.

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. Loud noise from music, on Saturday morning 8th June around 10 am. The music was so loud neighbours could not hear each speak. the neighbor was threatened with violence and told their cars outside would be damaged if noise control was called again. b. Shouting and breaking glass at 5.20pm on 12 June 2024 c. Morning shouting and fighting at 5AM. Morning shouting swearing and banging on the garage door at the property. This started around 4:30AM and carried on for around an hour.
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 not determined whether the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred because the landlord has not property complied with the notice requirements in three respects.
First, two notices were emailed to the tenants on 13 June 2024. It is not reasonable that a tenant receives two notices at the same time. The notices were emailed separately and were sent minutes apart, but that is not within the spirit or intent of the statute. The tenant should have received a notice about the first instance on 8 June before the second alleged instance occurred. The two notices sent on 13 June are effectively one notice about conduct that had occurred on 8 June and 12 June.
Secondly, the first notice was about conduct alleged to have occurred the day before on 12 June. The second notice was about conduct alleged to have occurred 5 days earlier on 8 June. It is not reasonable to give a tenant a notice purporting to be a second notice when the conduct precedes the first.
None of the notices advised the tenants of their right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice.
Because the Tribunal is being asked to make an order terminating based on the issuing of three notices within the prescribed period, it is important that there is strict adherence to the requirements of the Act.
I have therefore decided it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the notices were given. Observations
The landlord produced unsigned, anonymous statements from neighbours and a schedule of alleged incidents. The landlord is reminded that in any hearing if the other party disputes the incidents described in those documents, the landlord would need signed, dated evidence from named witnesses.
The tenant accepted that there were some disturbances caused by others who were living at the property and those people have now left, the tenants having given them 28 days’ notice. The tenants are reminded that notice provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act do not apply to flatmates. More importantly, the tenancy agreement contains a maximum occupancy provision and so they would have been breaching the terms of their tenancy by allowing others to live there.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4924375 — Harassment at 10 Mercury Street, Milson, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4924375 — Harassment at 10 Mercury Street, Milson, Palmerston North 4414

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