What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4939053?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Vainetutui Parai at Unit/Flat 23, 16 Franklyne Road, Otara,

How much money was awarded in case 4939053?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939053?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939053?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10687312-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4939053?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Vainetutui Parai at Unit/Flat 23, 16 Franklyne Road, Otara,

How much money was awarded in case 4939053?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939053?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939053?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10687312-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 23, 16 Franklyne Road, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4939053 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Vainetutui Parai at Unit/Flat 23, 16 Franklyne Road, Otara, Auckland 2023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Mahitahi Kainga Trust, at 11.59 pm, Friday, 23 August 2024.

Reasons

Ms Nathan and Mr Haua attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
Ms Parai did not attend the hearing.
Ms Nathan and Mr Haua informed me that Ms Parai was aware of today’s hearing.
I note that Tenancy Services sent a Notice of Hearing to Ms. Parai on 16 July 2024 at her tenancy address. Ms Parai was served with the notice about today’s hearing. Accordingly, I continued the hearing in Ms Parai’s absence.
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.
Ms. Nathan described the issues with her tenant, Ms. Parai, who allowed her son, Mr. E. Puti, and his spouse, Ms. S. Puti, to access the property. Ms Nathan submitted: a. Disruptive Behaviour: that the tenant's son, Mr E Puti and his spouse, Ms S Puti, behaviour disrupts the rest of the tenants and that the issues are unlikely to resolve if the tenant remains. b. Violence and Aggression: There are concerns about violent and aggressive behaviour from Mr E Puti and Ms S Puti, which has led to multiple police interventions. c. Risk of Recurrence: Even if Mr E Puti and Ms S Puti were to temporarily move somewhere else, they would likely return and engage in disruptive behaviour again. d. Threats to Other Tenants: There have been threats of physical harm directed towards other tenants, which raises safety concerns. e. Lack of Communication: that the tenant, Ms Parai has blocked communication and is not interested in resolving the issues, further complicating the situation. f. Previous Attempts to Resolve: she had previously tried to work with Ms Parai and her family but has seen no improvement.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour as follows: a. Notice 1 – 13 May 2024 i. Engaging in disruptive behaviour. ii. Verbally abusing other tenants. iii. Threatening other residents. iv. Causing disturbance during late hours. v. Disregarding the previous trespass notice. vi. Harbouring trespassed individual. b. Notice 2 – 24 June 2024 i. Disregarding the previous trespass notice. ii. Harbouring trespassed individual. c. Notice 3 – 17 July 2024. i. Threaten other residents. ii. Disregarding the previous trespass notice. iii. Harbouring trespassed individual.
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 Ms Nathan 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.
Based on the compelling evidence, I believe that ending Ms. Parai's tenancy is appropriate because she allowed her son, Mr. E Puti, and her daughter-in-law, Ms. S Puti, to access and stay at the property, causing safety concerns for other residents. Filing fee
Because Mahitahi Kainga Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of Vainetutui Parai at Unit/Flat 23, 16 Franklyne Road, Otara, Auckland 2023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Mahitahi Kainga Trust, at 11.59 pm, Friday, 23 August 2024.

Reasons

Ms Nathan and Mr Haua attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
Ms Parai did not attend the hearing.
Ms Nathan and Mr Haua informed me that Ms Parai was aware of today’s hearing.
I note that Tenancy Services sent a Notice of Hearing to Ms. Parai on 16 July 2024 at her tenancy address. Ms Parai was served with the notice about today’s hearing. Accordingly, I continued the hearing in Ms Parai’s absence.
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.
Ms. Nathan described the issues with her tenant, Ms. Parai, who allowed her son, Mr. E. Puti, and his spouse, Ms. S. Puti, to access the property. Ms Nathan submitted: a. Disruptive Behaviour: that the tenant's son, Mr E Puti and his spouse, Ms S Puti, behaviour disrupts the rest of the tenants and that the issues are unlikely to resolve if the tenant remains. b. Violence and Aggression: There are concerns about violent and aggressive behaviour from Mr E Puti and Ms S Puti, which has led to multiple police interventions. c. Risk of Recurrence: Even if Mr E Puti and Ms S Puti were to temporarily move somewhere else, they would likely return and engage in disruptive behaviour again. d. Threats to Other Tenants: There have been threats of physical harm directed towards other tenants, which raises safety concerns. e. Lack of Communication: that the tenant, Ms Parai has blocked communication and is not interested in resolving the issues, further complicating the situation. f. Previous Attempts to Resolve: she had previously tried to work with Ms Parai and her family but has seen no improvement.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour as follows: a. Notice 1 – 13 May 2024 i. Engaging in disruptive behaviour. ii. Verbally abusing other tenants. iii. Threatening other residents. iv. Causing disturbance during late hours. v. Disregarding the previous trespass notice. vi. Harbouring trespassed individual. b. Notice 2 – 24 June 2024 i. Disregarding the previous trespass notice. ii. Harbouring trespassed individual. c. Notice 3 – 17 July 2024. i. Threaten other residents. ii. Disregarding the previous trespass notice. iii. Harbouring trespassed individual.
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 Ms Nathan 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.
Based on the compelling evidence, I believe that ending Ms. Parai's tenancy is appropriate because she allowed her son, Mr. E Puti, and her daughter-in-law, Ms. S Puti, to access and stay at the property, causing safety concerns for other residents. Filing fee
Because Mahitahi Kainga Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939053 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 23, 16 Franklyne Road, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939053 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 23, 16 Franklyne Road, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions