What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4978067?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4978067?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4978067?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4978067?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11014685-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4978067?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4978067?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4978067?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4978067?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11014685-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 608, 6 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4978067 — Harassment

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by Mr Rapues, attended the hearing, which was conducted by teleconference. Three calls were made to the tenant, but all were unanswered and went to voicemail.
As the landlord’s evidence was incomplete, the hearing was adjourned part- heard, and additional time was given for the filing of further evidence. Background
This tenancy began on 19 April 2024. The landlord is a social housing provider, and the premises is part of an apartment complex.
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 also seeks payment of outgoings (electricity charges).
In its application the landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is as follows, as described in the notices issued on the following dates: a. 5 August 2024: First notice issued stating that the tenant and her sister were involved in a brawl on 2 August 2024, where they were swearing loudly and fighting in the lobby and the lift of the apartment building. b. 6 August 2024: Second notice stating that the tenant and her sister were swearing loudly and fighting in the lift lobby on 6 August 2024. c. 16 August 2024: Third notice stating the tenant and an unidentified male was agitated and swearing loudly from the tenant’s unit to the corridor, and into the lift. This incident occurred on 15 August 2024
Afterwards, a further notice was issued, on 29 August 2024 (being the fourth notice), following an incident on 28 August 2024, where the tenant’s visitor was banging on the stairwell door (being the fire escape), to gain entry.
At the hearing, the landlord referred to photographs and CCTV footage. The landlord stated that the first incident took place in front of the apartment and lasted four minutes. There was no property damage. The landlord was alerted to the incident by other tenants on the same floor, in neighbouring apartments. The second incident was reported by a tenant in the level above. It was believed alcohol was a factor. The tenant accepted responsibility and apologised afterwards. The third incident involved the tenant’s father, who was angry and was swearing, and there was a lot of shouting. According to the CCTV footage, it lasted around two minutes.
The landlord states that other residents in the apartment complex had expressed concerns about the tenant’s behaviour. Prior to the notices being issued, there had been complaints about loud noise and music. The landlord also refers to the tenant having a party on 14 October 2024, resulting in complaints. None of the incidents involved the attendance of police or noise control officers. Legal framework
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
Under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that: 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.
Section 55A(7) defines anti-social behaviour as meaning harassment, or any other 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 the landlord as set out above.
In this case, I note that the landlord served notices on the tenant, as required under section 55A(2)(b) of the RTA, and has provided photographic evidence confirming delivery. The application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice, in accordance with section 55A(2)(c), having been filed on 20 August 2024. The landlord has also provided evidence to show that the three separate occasions occurred within a 90-day period, on the dates identified in the notices, and were in connection with the tenancy.
However, I decline to make an order for termination of the tenancy because I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that the tenant engaged in anti- social behaviour, on three separate occasions, within the 90-day period, as required under section 55A(2)(a).
Applying the RTA definition of anti-social behaviour, the Tribunal needs to be satisfied that the act “reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor.” In some cases, due to the surrounding circumstances and the seriousness of the behaviour, a finding can be made that the tenant had engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy.
In this case, I am not satisfied that the third occasion, where the tenant and her father were swearing loudly on 15 August 2024, meets the threshold of anti-social behaviour. I acknowledge that this behaviour may have been disruptive for other residents. However, the event did not directly involve other residents, was of short duration, and there was no evidence of physical harm, threat of harm, or damage or threat of damage to property. Furthermore, it did not require the attendance of police or noise control officers.
I have also considered whether there was evidence that the act reasonably caused alarm, distress, or nuisance, bearing in mind that it must be more than minor. At the hearing, there was no direct evidence from any of the residents affected by the events. I acknowledge they may be reluctant to give evidence at a hearing. The landlord was given the opportunity to file further evidence after the hearing. However, written statements were provided on the basis that only the adjudicator was to view them. Unfortunately, I am unable to consider evidence that is not to be disclosed to the other party. The landlord had the option to remove the names and identifying details when providing this evidence, but this has not occurred. In the absence of persuasive evidence that establishes the effect of the act on the other residents, it is difficult to make a finding that this part of the test has been satisfied.
There is also the fourth notice issued by the landlord on 29 August 2024, following an incident where the tenant’s visitor was banging on the stairwell door to gain entry. However, this notice was issued after the landlord’s application was filed, and therefore, cannot be considered. It is also unclear whether this event would meet the threshold of anti-social behaviour.
For the above reasons, I decline to terminate this tenancy under section 55A of the RTA, since the landlord has been unable to satisfy all elements of the statutory test. In making this finding, I acknowledge the landlord’s reasons for seeking termination, including its concern for the welfare of its other residents. However, having found the requirements under section 55A have not been met, I dismiss the application for termination. Outgoings
Under the RTA a tenant is responsible for all outgoings for the premises exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises, including electricity, gas, telephone and internet. 1
The landlord has submitted its internal invoices, but the invoices from the power company for the outstanding electricity charges have not been provided. Therefore, without this supporting evidence, I am unable to conclude that the tenant is liable for the electricity costs sought. 1 S.39(4)(a) and (b) Filing fee
As the landlord has been unsuccessful, there is not order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by Mr Rapues, attended the hearing, which was conducted by teleconference. Three calls were made to the tenant, but all were unanswered and went to voicemail.
As the landlord’s evidence was incomplete, the hearing was adjourned part- heard, and additional time was given for the filing of further evidence. Background
This tenancy began on 19 April 2024. The landlord is a social housing provider, and the premises is part of an apartment complex.
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 also seeks payment of outgoings (electricity charges).
In its application the landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is as follows, as described in the notices issued on the following dates: a. 5 August 2024: First notice issued stating that the tenant and her sister were involved in a brawl on 2 August 2024, where they were swearing loudly and fighting in the lobby and the lift of the apartment building. b. 6 August 2024: Second notice stating that the tenant and her sister were swearing loudly and fighting in the lift lobby on 6 August 2024. c. 16 August 2024: Third notice stating the tenant and an unidentified male was agitated and swearing loudly from the tenant’s unit to the corridor, and into the lift. This incident occurred on 15 August 2024
Afterwards, a further notice was issued, on 29 August 2024 (being the fourth notice), following an incident on 28 August 2024, where the tenant’s visitor was banging on the stairwell door (being the fire escape), to gain entry.
At the hearing, the landlord referred to photographs and CCTV footage. The landlord stated that the first incident took place in front of the apartment and lasted four minutes. There was no property damage. The landlord was alerted to the incident by other tenants on the same floor, in neighbouring apartments. The second incident was reported by a tenant in the level above. It was believed alcohol was a factor. The tenant accepted responsibility and apologised afterwards. The third incident involved the tenant’s father, who was angry and was swearing, and there was a lot of shouting. According to the CCTV footage, it lasted around two minutes.
The landlord states that other residents in the apartment complex had expressed concerns about the tenant’s behaviour. Prior to the notices being issued, there had been complaints about loud noise and music. The landlord also refers to the tenant having a party on 14 October 2024, resulting in complaints. None of the incidents involved the attendance of police or noise control officers. Legal framework
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
Under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that: 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.
Section 55A(7) defines anti-social behaviour as meaning harassment, or any other 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 the landlord as set out above.
In this case, I note that the landlord served notices on the tenant, as required under section 55A(2)(b) of the RTA, and has provided photographic evidence confirming delivery. The application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice, in accordance with section 55A(2)(c), having been filed on 20 August 2024. The landlord has also provided evidence to show that the three separate occasions occurred within a 90-day period, on the dates identified in the notices, and were in connection with the tenancy.
However, I decline to make an order for termination of the tenancy because I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that the tenant engaged in anti- social behaviour, on three separate occasions, within the 90-day period, as required under section 55A(2)(a).
Applying the RTA definition of anti-social behaviour, the Tribunal needs to be satisfied that the act “reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor.” In some cases, due to the surrounding circumstances and the seriousness of the behaviour, a finding can be made that the tenant had engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy.
In this case, I am not satisfied that the third occasion, where the tenant and her father were swearing loudly on 15 August 2024, meets the threshold of anti-social behaviour. I acknowledge that this behaviour may have been disruptive for other residents. However, the event did not directly involve other residents, was of short duration, and there was no evidence of physical harm, threat of harm, or damage or threat of damage to property. Furthermore, it did not require the attendance of police or noise control officers.
I have also considered whether there was evidence that the act reasonably caused alarm, distress, or nuisance, bearing in mind that it must be more than minor. At the hearing, there was no direct evidence from any of the residents affected by the events. I acknowledge they may be reluctant to give evidence at a hearing. The landlord was given the opportunity to file further evidence after the hearing. However, written statements were provided on the basis that only the adjudicator was to view them. Unfortunately, I am unable to consider evidence that is not to be disclosed to the other party. The landlord had the option to remove the names and identifying details when providing this evidence, but this has not occurred. In the absence of persuasive evidence that establishes the effect of the act on the other residents, it is difficult to make a finding that this part of the test has been satisfied.
There is also the fourth notice issued by the landlord on 29 August 2024, following an incident where the tenant’s visitor was banging on the stairwell door to gain entry. However, this notice was issued after the landlord’s application was filed, and therefore, cannot be considered. It is also unclear whether this event would meet the threshold of anti-social behaviour.
For the above reasons, I decline to terminate this tenancy under section 55A of the RTA, since the landlord has been unable to satisfy all elements of the statutory test. In making this finding, I acknowledge the landlord’s reasons for seeking termination, including its concern for the welfare of its other residents. However, having found the requirements under section 55A have not been met, I dismiss the application for termination. Outgoings
Under the RTA a tenant is responsible for all outgoings for the premises exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises, including electricity, gas, telephone and internet. 1
The landlord has submitted its internal invoices, but the invoices from the power company for the outstanding electricity charges have not been provided. Therefore, without this supporting evidence, I am unable to conclude that the tenant is liable for the electricity costs sought. 1 S.39(4)(a) and (b) Filing fee
As the landlord has been unsuccessful, there is not order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4978067 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Unit 608, 6 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4978067 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Unit 608, 6 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden,

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

At a glance

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for anti-social behaviour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for anti-social behaviour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions