What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4932333?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Steven Joseph MCNALLY at Unit/Flat 5, 15 Arthur Street, Upper

How much money was awarded in case 4932333?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4932333?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4932333?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10715760-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4932333?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Steven Joseph MCNALLY at Unit/Flat 5, 15 Arthur Street, Upper

How much money was awarded in case 4932333?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4932333?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4932333?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10715760-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 15 Arthur Street, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4932333 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Ms Rea and Ms Woods attended on behalf of the landlord.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c)(v), section 55A, and section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Section 55(1)(c)(v) – threatening to assault a neighbour

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy due to the tenant assaulting or threatening to assault a neighbour.

The landlord claims that the tenant threated to assault a neighbour at the complex where the premises are located on 21 May 2024.

The landlord provided a copy of a related police report and video evidence to support this claim. Section 55A – anti-social behaviour

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 includes, banging on the neighbour’s fence, using racist slurs, shouting and swearing and threats of violence.

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 three notices relate to incidents on 21 March 2024, 17 April 2024, and 21 May 2024.

In relation to the incidents on 17 April and 21 May 2024 the landlord provided video evidence to support the claims.

In relation to the incidents on 21 March and 21 May 2024, the landlord provided copies of police reports filed in relation to these incidents.

The landlord claimed that the tenant was arrested by police in relation to the incident on 21 March 2024

I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.

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 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. Section 56 – breach of obligations under the tenancy agreement and the Act

The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

The landlord claims that the tenant has breached his obligations under the tenancy agreement and section 40(2)(c) of the Act in that he has interfered with the peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those tenants.

The landlord provided information about a number of occasions where complaints were made to the landlord in relation to this tenant.

The landlord provided police statements and video evidence as stated above.

The tenant acknowledged that he had an ongoing difficult relationship with a neighbour in the complex. He considered that the issues went both ways and said that the neighbour had, on one occasion, assaulted him.

The neighbour said, in a police statement relating to an incident on 21 March 2024, that he when the tenant refused to leave his property, he; “used [his] walking stick and pushed [the tenant] in the centre of his chest causing him to step outside of my unit where [he] shut the door and locked it.”

The tenant was arrested by police in relation to this incident.

The tenant acknowledged, during the hearing, that he had used racial slurs towards the neighbour, and he apologised for having used that language.

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate under section 56(1) of the Act.

Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.

However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.

The tenant has breached their obligations by interfering with the peace, comfort or privacy of his neighbours.

He has been warned by the landlord on a number of occasions and the behaviour has continued.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy given the number of breaches and the landlord’s efforts to engage with the tenant to address the behaviour.

I have determined that the tenant has threatened to assault a neighbour (s55(1)(c)(v)).

I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant (s55A).

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 have determined that the tenant has breached his obligations under the tenancy agreement and the Act (s56).

The breach is not capable of remedy because the incidents have already occurred and cannot be undone.

During the hearing the parties agreed that the most suitable outcome is for this tenant to move to another property and that is already in progress.

The tenant thanked the landlord’s representatives for their efforts in regard to assisting him to another property.

I have terminated the tenancy from 1 September 2024 in order to give the tenant time to relocate to another suitable property.

Reasons