What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4930015?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Olivia Pare-Te-Korae Rewi at 32 Douglas Crescent, Fairfield,

How much money was awarded in case 4930015?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4930015?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4930015?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10621408-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4930015?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Olivia Pare-Te-Korae Rewi at 32 Douglas Crescent, Fairfield,

How much money was awarded in case 4930015?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4930015?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4930015?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10621408-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32 Douglas Crescent, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4930015 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Olivia Pare-Te-Korae Rewi at 32 Douglas Crescent, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Two calls to the tenant went unanswered and to voicemail. After the first call went to voicemail, a brief message was left introducing myself and explaining the purpose of the call. The message concluded with the advice I would try a second time after waiting some minutes. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the second call also went unanswered.
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.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied (see s 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986): 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. Notices
Three anti-social behaviour notices were served on the tenant.
The first, on 12 April 2024 pertained to events on 2 April 2024 when the tenant threw objects at the neighbour who was sitting in their car. This caused them to “feel alarmed and distressed”. Police attended to de-escalate the situation. Initial restraining of the tenant by the police was required.
The second notice, on 20 May 2024 related to events on 6 May 2024 when during a loud family dispute at the premises a neighbour asked them to be quiet. The tenant responded with threatening language to that neighbour. The landlord visited the tenant on 14 May regarding this. The tenant did not engage with the landlord, made further threats regarding the neighbour and, later, on 16 May failed to meet at the landlord’s office to discuss the situation despite promising to.
The third and final notice, on 20 June 2024 pertained to events on 2 June 2024. The notice recounted neighbours’ observations of serious threatening and abusive language directed at a neighbour. Another person at the tenant premises was seen holding a metal object and making threatening gestures.
Between the three notice dates, there have been further attempts by the landlord to engage with the tenant, with no adequate response.
The landlord also evidenced earlier notices to the tenant regarding disruptive behaviour and other breaches.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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 Olivia Pare-Te-Korae Rewi at 32 Douglas Crescent, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Two calls to the tenant went unanswered and to voicemail. After the first call went to voicemail, a brief message was left introducing myself and explaining the purpose of the call. The message concluded with the advice I would try a second time after waiting some minutes. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the second call also went unanswered.
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.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied (see s 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986): 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. Notices
Three anti-social behaviour notices were served on the tenant.
The first, on 12 April 2024 pertained to events on 2 April 2024 when the tenant threw objects at the neighbour who was sitting in their car. This caused them to “feel alarmed and distressed”. Police attended to de-escalate the situation. Initial restraining of the tenant by the police was required.
The second notice, on 20 May 2024 related to events on 6 May 2024 when during a loud family dispute at the premises a neighbour asked them to be quiet. The tenant responded with threatening language to that neighbour. The landlord visited the tenant on 14 May regarding this. The tenant did not engage with the landlord, made further threats regarding the neighbour and, later, on 16 May failed to meet at the landlord’s office to discuss the situation despite promising to.
The third and final notice, on 20 June 2024 pertained to events on 2 June 2024. The notice recounted neighbours’ observations of serious threatening and abusive language directed at a neighbour. Another person at the tenant premises was seen holding a metal object and making threatening gestures.
Between the three notice dates, there have been further attempts by the landlord to engage with the tenant, with no adequate response.
The landlord also evidenced earlier notices to the tenant regarding disruptive behaviour and other breaches.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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 4930015 — Harassment at 32 Douglas Crescent, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4930015 — Harassment at 32 Douglas Crescent, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions