What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5002228?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Steve Hunt at Unit/Flat 8, 140 Taupo Road, Taumarunui,

How much money was awarded in case 5002228?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5002228?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5002228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10899952-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5002228?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Steve Hunt at Unit/Flat 8, 140 Taupo Road, Taumarunui,

How much money was awarded in case 5002228?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5002228?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5002228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10899952-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 8, 140 Taupo Road, Taumarunui, Taumarunui Tenancy Tribunal Case 5002228 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5002228 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

The tenancy of Steve Hunt at Unit/Flat 8, 140 Taupo Road, Taumarunui, Taumarunui 3920 is terminated, and possession is granted to Ruapehu District Council, at 11.59pm on Wednesday 2 October 2024.

The Bond Centre is to pay $27.00 from the bond of $200.00 (5863304-004) to Ruapehu District Council immediately.

The balance of the bond of $173.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

This application was scheduled to be heard by telephone. Mr Hunt does not have a phone and I understand that there was an understanding between him and his support worker (Ninian Robb) that he attend the support worker’s office today at the scheduled hearing time so that he could participate in the hearing. I spoke to Mr Robb and he advised that Mr Hunt did not attend his office at the scheduled time and so the hearing has proceeded in Mr Hunt’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.

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour relates to Mr Hunt allowing visitors on to the premises at which time there is a lot of drinking, loud parties, bad language and bottles being thrown and smashed. These gatherings have caused considerable distress to Mr Hunt’s neighbours who also rent premises in the complex.

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 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. In fact the landlord and Mr Robb appear to have tried their best with Mr Hunt to no avail.

I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.

Along with this termination order I am requiring Mr Hunt to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was wholly successful in the claim against him. C ter Haar 02 October 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5002228 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

The tenancy of Steve Hunt at Unit/Flat 8, 140 Taupo Road, Taumarunui, Taumarunui 3920 is terminated, and possession is granted to Ruapehu District Council, at 11.59pm on Wednesday 2 October 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay $27.00 from the bond of $200.00 (5863304-004) to Ruapehu District Council immediately.
The balance of the bond of $173.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

This application was scheduled to be heard by telephone. Mr Hunt does not have a phone and I understand that there was an understanding between him and his support worker (Ninian Robb) that he attend the support worker’s office today at the scheduled hearing time so that he could participate in the hearing. I spoke to Mr Robb and he advised that Mr Hunt did not attend his office at the scheduled time and so the hearing has proceeded in Mr Hunt’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.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour relates to Mr Hunt allowing visitors on to the premises at which time there is a lot of drinking, loud parties, bad language and bottles being thrown and smashed. These gatherings have caused considerable distress to Mr Hunt’s neighbours who also rent premises in the complex.
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 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. In fact the landlord and Mr Robb appear to have tried their best with Mr Hunt to no avail.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
Along with this termination order I am requiring Mr Hunt to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was wholly successful in the claim against him. C ter Haar 02 October 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 5002228 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 8, 140 Taupo Road, Taumarunui, Taumarunui

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5002228 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 8, 140 Taupo Road, Taumarunui, Taumarunui

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions