What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4972574?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Porscha Collins-Trembath at 14B Moewai Park Road,

How much money was awarded in case 4972574?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4972574?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4972574?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11249382-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4972574?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Porscha Collins-Trembath at 14B Moewai Park Road,

How much money was awarded in case 4972574?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4972574?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4972574?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11249382-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14B Moewai Park Road, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4972574 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Porscha Collins-Trembath at 14B Moewai Park Road, Whitianga, 3510 is terminated, and possession is granted to Ingage Investments Limited, at 11:59pm on 26 January 2024.
Porscha Collins-Trembath must pay Ingage Investments Limited $27.00 for reimbursement of the filing fee immediately.
All other claims are 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 tenant has made a cross application for breach of quiet enjoyment, failure to maintain, compensation, damages, and an attempt to terminate without grounds. Background
The periodic tenancy commenced on 3 November 2023. The landlord also owns and tenants the property next door.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is representative of a pattern of behaviour shown by the tenant. There were three earlier anti-social notices issued to the tenant in 2024, however the Tribunal found technical errors in the notices and the application for termination was dismissed.
The landlord submits that the ongoing pattern of anti-social behaviour has caused significant alarm, distress, and nuisance to both neighbours, service providers and the landlords. It includes verbal harassment and obstructive actions and there is documented evidence of aggressive conduct towards a neighbour, including a physical attack. The incidents have occurred on multiple occasions and have created an unsafe and hostile environment.
The tenant submits that she was acting reasonably in all circumstances, and that the issue is the neighbours and not her.
The landlord states that the tenant has engaged in anti-social behaviour towards service providers and neighbours, by doing the following: a. By asking the neighbours to move their cars and then obstructing the neighbours when they attempted to move vehicles parked alongside their house, physically standing in the way, and causing distress, resulting in the police being called, at around 7:00pm on 12 July 2024. b. By throwing a piece of wood at the neighbour’s letterbox as captured on CCTV footage at 1:30pm and verbally abusing the neighbour, slamming the driveway gate into the neighbour’s cabin at 3:00am, causing distress to the neighbours and both occurring on 7 August 2024. c. By spraying a hose over the neighbour’s fence, wetting them while they are in the backyard, which has been filmed, at around 10:30am, and causing alarm and distress, on 14 August 2024.
A fourth notice was issued for the tenant’s interactions with a landlord arranged plumber who advised the landlord that he was verbally abused over the phone for being slightly late and ultimately told not to bother attending on 24 August 2024 at 9:00am. A further notice was issued for verbal abuse to a neighbour, by yelling verbal abuse over the fence, causing distress and alarm to the neighbour’s boarder on 10 September 2024 at around 1:00pm. Both of these notices were also issued within the same 90-day period.
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 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 submits that the ongoing behaviour of the tenant has caused them significant hardship, including mental and emotional distress. They have anxiety when contacted by phone, fear for their safety when visiting the property, and have strained relationships with surrounding neighbours. They say the tenant has created a hostile environment that has made it challenging to secure necessary repairs and maintenance, impacting the property’s condition, and adding to the worry and stress.
I have considered 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.
Although I appreciate the tenant’s submission regarding the inability to find another tenancy with dogs, I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The tenancy is terminated.
The landlord wants to provide the tenant sufficient time to find another property, and accordingly possession is set for 26 January 2024. Tenant’s claims
The tenant has made several cross-application claims against the landlord. These include a breach of quiet enjoyment by the neighbouring tenants, a failure to maintain, an attempt to terminate without grounds, with claims for compensation and exemplary damages being sought because of these allegations.
As I have terminated the tenancy for anti-social behaviour, the claim for the attempt to terminate without grounds is dismissed.
In respect of the claim for a breach of quiet enjoyment, a landlord is required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. See section 45(1)(e) of the RTA.
In these circumstances, the landlord owes this obligation to both tenants and has issued anti-social notices to the tenant because of evidence they have received from the other tenants and service providers.
The tenant claims that the neighbours (who share the same landlord) constantly harass her, play loud music until early in the morning, drink constantly, have dropped glass on the driveway, have filmed her when she’s been outside, and have threatened to call police. They also park cars along the side of their house. At various times it appears that both the tenant and neighbouring tenant have phoned the police, noise control and council (for claims of the tenant’s dogs incessant barking).
The tenant has provided video evidence that show interactions with the neighbouring tenants. The videos show, in my view, reasonably abusive behaviour and language from both sides. It could be said that the videos are evidence of poor behaviour from the tenant, more so than the neighbouring tenants.
I understand that the tenant feels unfairly targeted by both the neighbouring tenants and landlord. What is clear is that there has been a complete relationship breakdown between the two sets of tenants, however, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine neighbour disputes and I am not satisfied that the evidence shows that the tenant has suffered from a breach of quiet enjoyment from the landlord, or the landlord’s tenants.
The tenant’s claim for a breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed.
The tenant has also claimed for a failure to maintain. She states that at the start of the tenant there was a verbal agreement that the lawns would be done by the landlord, and this has not occurred recently, resulting in the tenant having to arrange this herself. The tenant also says that there have been several other maintenance items that have not been remedied, including a fence falling.
The landlord advises that they have been unable to carry out the lawn maintenance, due to communications from the arranged lawn contractor that the tenant had verbally abused them. They have also been hesitant to engage any other contractors due to the continued issues they have had with the tenant engaging with contractors.
I accept the evidence from the landlord on this point, who has provided communications from contractors explaining their interactions with the tenant and advising that they had been verbally abused. The tenant may have felt like she had been reasonable, but the evidence provided shows that her behaviour has prevented the landlord maintaining the property.
In any event, as I have terminated the tenancy, there would be no reason to consider making a work order that any works are done.
The claim for a failure to maintain is dismissed.
As the landlord has been wholly or substantially successful, I must reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 23 December 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4972574 — Harassment at 14B Moewai Park Road, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4972574 — Harassment at 14B Moewai Park Road, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510

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