What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5006028?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of John Douglas Nepe at Unit/Flat Unit 304, 272 Worcester Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5006028?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5006028?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5006028?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10941583-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5006028?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of John Douglas Nepe at Unit/Flat Unit 304, 272 Worcester Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5006028?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5006028?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5006028?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10941583-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 304, 272 Worcester Street, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5006028 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of John Douglas Nepe at Unit/Flat Unit 304, 272 Worcester Street, Christchurch Central, Christchurch 8011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at 11.59pm on Friday 11 October 2024.

Reasons

Ms Rea represented the landlord. The tenant did not attend 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 landlord states that the anti-social behaviour comprises the tenant disturbing neighbours by walking across the roof to access his unit (twice); and playing loud music and having visitors who make noise in the early hours of the morning.
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 considered the evidence Ms Rea presented. I find that the statutory requirements have been met.
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 by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The notices are dated 10 July, 5 August, and 4 September 2024. 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.
Separately, the landlord would have had grounds for termination under section 56 RTA for breaches capable of remedy. The landlord served a breach notice, but the behaviour continued.
The landlord’s concern here is not only about the neighbours whom the tenant disturbs. It is rightly concerned about the tenant’s own safety. The tenant’s senior housing support manager has recorded that the tenant admits he climbs up the outside of the building (a multi-storey building), and over the roof, to gain access to his unit.
To date, the landlord has incurred costs of $2,435.13 following 9 episodes when the tenant has locked himself out.
The landlord’s other concern is that a previous tenant, who acted in the same way, climbing onto the roof, fell and suffered a serious back injury, and that could happen to this tenant. That is a legitimate health and safety concern.
Ms Rea said that the tenant’s housing support manager spoke to the tenant yesterday and he has signed an authority for a transfer to another unit more suitable due to its lay-out.
Ms Rea said the new unit should be available by 21 October 2024, if the tenant is willing to move. She said the landlord would work with him (if he were prepared to engage) to ensure he is appropriately housed.
I have made the termination order with effect at the end of today. That is so the landlord can act if the tenant continues to behave in a manner that is a health and safety risk to himself, or a disturbance to others. Unless he does so, Ms Rea assured the Tribunal that the tenant can remain in possession until the other unit is available and he consents to the transfer. But if he does not consent, the landlord can enforce the order.
The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of John Douglas Nepe at Unit/Flat Unit 304, 272 Worcester Street, Christchurch Central, Christchurch 8011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at 11.59pm on Friday 11 October 2024.

Reasons

Ms Rea represented the landlord. The tenant did not attend 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 landlord states that the anti-social behaviour comprises the tenant disturbing neighbours by walking across the roof to access his unit (twice); and playing loud music and having visitors who make noise in the early hours of the morning.
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 considered the evidence Ms Rea presented. I find that the statutory requirements have been met.
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 by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The notices are dated 10 July, 5 August, and 4 September 2024. 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.
Separately, the landlord would have had grounds for termination under section 56 RTA for breaches capable of remedy. The landlord served a breach notice, but the behaviour continued.
The landlord’s concern here is not only about the neighbours whom the tenant disturbs. It is rightly concerned about the tenant’s own safety. The tenant’s senior housing support manager has recorded that the tenant admits he climbs up the outside of the building (a multi-storey building), and over the roof, to gain access to his unit.
To date, the landlord has incurred costs of $2,435.13 following 9 episodes when the tenant has locked himself out.
The landlord’s other concern is that a previous tenant, who acted in the same way, climbing onto the roof, fell and suffered a serious back injury, and that could happen to this tenant. That is a legitimate health and safety concern.
Ms Rea said that the tenant’s housing support manager spoke to the tenant yesterday and he has signed an authority for a transfer to another unit more suitable due to its lay-out.
Ms Rea said the new unit should be available by 21 October 2024, if the tenant is willing to move. She said the landlord would work with him (if he were prepared to engage) to ensure he is appropriately housed.
I have made the termination order with effect at the end of today. That is so the landlord can act if the tenant continues to behave in a manner that is a health and safety risk to himself, or a disturbance to others. Unless he does so, Ms Rea assured the Tribunal that the tenant can remain in possession until the other unit is available and he consents to the transfer. But if he does not consent, the landlord can enforce the order.
The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5006028 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Unit 304, 272 Worcester Street, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5006028 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Unit 304, 272 Worcester Street, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions