What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4945394?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jordon Helleur at 59A Redwood Drive, Massey, Auckland 0614 is

How much money was awarded in case 4945394?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4945394?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4945394?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10649904-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4945394?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jordon Helleur at 59A Redwood Drive, Massey, Auckland 0614 is

How much money was awarded in case 4945394?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4945394?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4945394?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10649904-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

59A Redwood Drive, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4945394 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Jordon Helleur at 59A Redwood Drive, Massey, Auckland 0614 is terminated, and possession is granted to The Rent House Limited, at 5.00pm on Thursday 22 August 2024.
Jordon Helleur must pay The Rent House Limited $27.00 immediately being the filing fee for this application.
The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by teleconference. The tenant was called twice on the number provided but there was no response. The absence of a party does not prevent the matter being heard and determined.
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 tenancy may also be terminated for breach of the tenant’s obligations not capable of remedy.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is ongoing harassment of a neighbour.
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 landlord has provided 3 notices dated 19 July 2024. However, the landlord clarified that this is an automated mistake as the notices were re-printed the same day as the application was filed. The notices were in fact issued on 9 July, 16 July, and 17 July.
Notice 1 refers to anti-social behaviour on 8 July 2024. This involved a very loud fight with shouting and screaming, swearing and sounds of something being smashed.
Notice 2 refers to anti-social behaviour between 10 and 15 July 2024. This involved music with penetrating bass being played at night, people constantly running up and down stairs, slamming doors, shouting, and disturbing the sleep of neighbours.
Notice 3 refers to anti-social behaviour on 16 July 2024. This involves banging on a neighbour’s door, swearing, abusing and intimidating neighbours resulting in the police being called, and banging loudly on the shared interior wall.
I am satisfied the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the premises 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. The tenants did not attend the hearing to dispute the evidence or to explain their side of the story.
The tenancy is terminated.

Should the tenancy also be terminated under section 56 RTA?

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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
I have found that the tenant has breached their obligations by engaging in or permitting anti-social behaviour at the premises.
The breach is not capable of remedy because the effect of the anti-social behaviour on the neighbours cannot be undone; particularly the last incident of direct intimidating and threatening behaviour. I accept the evidence of the neighbours that they are mentally and physically drained and they have valid concerns for the health and safety of all family members, including a 5-month old baby. I also accept that this type of behaviour has been going on for some time, but the neighbour has only recently come forward with complaints to the landlord.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy due to the repeated nature of the behaviour which appears to be escalating given the recent involvement of police. The landlord confirmed there has since been another incident on 30 July with similar aggressive and intimidating behaviour reported.
I have allowed 3 weeks for the tenant to make alternative arrangements and leave the premises.

Should exemplary damages be awarded for harassment?

The Rent House Limited claims the tenant has harassed their neighbours.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant is responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant and a male occupant/visitor have harassed their neighbours on multiple occasions. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Given that the tenancy has been terminated, I do not consider it ‘just’ to impose a monetary award of exemplary damages on the tenant. This part of the claim is dismissed.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of Jordon Helleur at 59A Redwood Drive, Massey, Auckland 0614 is terminated, and possession is granted to The Rent House Limited, at 5.00pm on Thursday 22 August 2024.
Jordon Helleur must pay The Rent House Limited $27.00 immediately being the filing fee for this application.
The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by teleconference. The tenant was called twice on the number provided but there was no response. The absence of a party does not prevent the matter being heard and determined.
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 tenancy may also be terminated for breach of the tenant’s obligations not capable of remedy.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is ongoing harassment of a neighbour.
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 landlord has provided 3 notices dated 19 July 2024. However, the landlord clarified that this is an automated mistake as the notices were re-printed the same day as the application was filed. The notices were in fact issued on 9 July, 16 July, and 17 July.
Notice 1 refers to anti-social behaviour on 8 July 2024. This involved a very loud fight with shouting and screaming, swearing and sounds of something being smashed.
Notice 2 refers to anti-social behaviour between 10 and 15 July 2024. This involved music with penetrating bass being played at night, people constantly running up and down stairs, slamming doors, shouting, and disturbing the sleep of neighbours.
Notice 3 refers to anti-social behaviour on 16 July 2024. This involves banging on a neighbour’s door, swearing, abusing and intimidating neighbours resulting in the police being called, and banging loudly on the shared interior wall.
I am satisfied the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the premises 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. The tenants did not attend the hearing to dispute the evidence or to explain their side of the story.
The tenancy is terminated.

Should the tenancy also be terminated under section 56 RTA?

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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
I have found that the tenant has breached their obligations by engaging in or permitting anti-social behaviour at the premises.
The breach is not capable of remedy because the effect of the anti-social behaviour on the neighbours cannot be undone; particularly the last incident of direct intimidating and threatening behaviour. I accept the evidence of the neighbours that they are mentally and physically drained and they have valid concerns for the health and safety of all family members, including a 5-month old baby. I also accept that this type of behaviour has been going on for some time, but the neighbour has only recently come forward with complaints to the landlord.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy due to the repeated nature of the behaviour which appears to be escalating given the recent involvement of police. The landlord confirmed there has since been another incident on 30 July with similar aggressive and intimidating behaviour reported.
I have allowed 3 weeks for the tenant to make alternative arrangements and leave the premises.

Should exemplary damages be awarded for harassment?

The Rent House Limited claims the tenant has harassed their neighbours.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant is responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant and a male occupant/visitor have harassed their neighbours on multiple occasions. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Given that the tenancy has been terminated, I do not consider it ‘just’ to impose a monetary award of exemplary damages on the tenant. This part of the claim is dismissed.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4945394 — Harassment at 59A Redwood Drive, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4945394 — Harassment at 59A Redwood Drive, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy also be terminated under section 56 RTA?

Should exemplary damages be awarded for harassment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy also be terminated under section 56 RTA?

Should exemplary damages be awarded for harassment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions