What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5020031?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5020031?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5020031?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5020031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11001850-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5020031?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5020031?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5020031?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5020031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11001850-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 19, 92 Princes Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5020031 — Harassment

Order

The landlord’s application for termination is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
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 is verbal abuse of Kamahl and his wife, verbal abuse to the Property Manager during a phone call, intimidating behaviour toward the groundsman mowing the lawn and a visitor parking in an allocated parking space.
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 notices were served by the landlord on 27 August 2024, 25 September 2024, and 30 September 2024.
The first notice dated 27 August 2024 does not comply with section 55A as it is not given pursuant to section 55A. Instead, the notice refers to section 56. Therefore, this notice cannot be considered as one of the three notices required for termination due to ant social behaviour.
Even if the notice had been made pursuant to section 55A the notice does not comply as it does not advise the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour. The notice does not state how many notices the landlord has given under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy.
While the landlord has not complied with section 55A(2)(b) in relation to the three written notices, even if these did comply I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that the tenant used anti-social behaviour as defined in section 55A(7).
There was very little evidence produced by the landlord in support of the application. There is reference to Kamahl and his wife, who I understand are residents in another unit, but no detail of what occurred. No evidence was produced from Kamahl or his wife or any other person in relation to that alleged incident. The tenant denied approaching Kamahl and his wife.
The landlord referred to an exchange between the tenant and the person charged with mowing the lawn at the premises. Again, no evidence was produced from that person or any witness in relation to that alleged incident. The tenant acknowledges asking the person how much longer he would be and asking him to move as the mower had been outside his premises for an hour and a half. The tenant said that the person advised that the mower was broken.
After the hearing the landlord produced a letter from Peter Williamson who I am told is the Chairman of a Residents (Village) Committee. I note that there is no mention of the Residents or Village Committee in the tenancy agreement, and I am also told that the committee is not part of the Body Corporate. It is therefore not clear how or if the committee has any authority over the tenant and his tenancy.
That letter states that on 13 September 2024 the Village Committee offered the tenant a carpark in the main complex of the village. It also states that on 20 September 2024 a visitor of the tenant parked in an allocated car park and the tenant affected did not feel comfortable confronting the tenant.
I note that there is no document recording how the parking is allocated. There is no mention of allocated parking in the tenancy agreement.
The tenant’s visitor using an allocated car park does not amount to anti-social behaviour warranting termination.
The letter also referred to the incident between the tenant and the person mowing the lawns. The description of this incident does not amount to anti- social behaviour.
One of the alleged incidents of anti-social behaviour was a telephone call between the tenant and the landlord. I am told that the telephone call was in relation to the tenant receiving notices that his rent was in arrears when it was not. I see on the file that at one stage an email was sent to the tenant advising that he was 377 days in arrears amounting to $22,140.00. I was told that this was an error, and the tenant received an apology for this. In addition, the tenant was receiving notices automatically generated telling him that he was one day in arrears. At the hearing the landlord said that these could not be stopped yet the tenant said that the previous tenant had managed to do so.
The landlord did not produce a recording of the telephone call or advise whether these calls were recorded. In the absence of a recording or other evidence it is the landlord’s evidence against the tenant’s in relation to this incident.
The landlord’s application for termination is dismissed on the basis that there was a procedural error in the notices given and because there was insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant engaged in any anti-social behaviour.
Of concern is that when I advised the landlord that he was unsuccessful with his application he responded by saying that the tenant was on notice and that everything he does will be watched and recorded from hereon in. The landlord is reminded that the tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment as provided by section 38 of the Act and that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
As the landlord has not succeeded with his application I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order

The landlord’s application for termination is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
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 is verbal abuse of Kamahl and his wife, verbal abuse to the Property Manager during a phone call, intimidating behaviour toward the groundsman mowing the lawn and a visitor parking in an allocated parking space.
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 notices were served by the landlord on 27 August 2024, 25 September 2024, and 30 September 2024.
The first notice dated 27 August 2024 does not comply with section 55A as it is not given pursuant to section 55A. Instead, the notice refers to section 56. Therefore, this notice cannot be considered as one of the three notices required for termination due to ant social behaviour.
Even if the notice had been made pursuant to section 55A the notice does not comply as it does not advise the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour. The notice does not state how many notices the landlord has given under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy.
While the landlord has not complied with section 55A(2)(b) in relation to the three written notices, even if these did comply I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that the tenant used anti-social behaviour as defined in section 55A(7).
There was very little evidence produced by the landlord in support of the application. There is reference to Kamahl and his wife, who I understand are residents in another unit, but no detail of what occurred. No evidence was produced from Kamahl or his wife or any other person in relation to that alleged incident. The tenant denied approaching Kamahl and his wife.
The landlord referred to an exchange between the tenant and the person charged with mowing the lawn at the premises. Again, no evidence was produced from that person or any witness in relation to that alleged incident. The tenant acknowledges asking the person how much longer he would be and asking him to move as the mower had been outside his premises for an hour and a half. The tenant said that the person advised that the mower was broken.
After the hearing the landlord produced a letter from Peter Williamson who I am told is the Chairman of a Residents (Village) Committee. I note that there is no mention of the Residents or Village Committee in the tenancy agreement, and I am also told that the committee is not part of the Body Corporate. It is therefore not clear how or if the committee has any authority over the tenant and his tenancy.
That letter states that on 13 September 2024 the Village Committee offered the tenant a carpark in the main complex of the village. It also states that on 20 September 2024 a visitor of the tenant parked in an allocated car park and the tenant affected did not feel comfortable confronting the tenant.
I note that there is no document recording how the parking is allocated. There is no mention of allocated parking in the tenancy agreement.
The tenant’s visitor using an allocated car park does not amount to anti-social behaviour warranting termination.
The letter also referred to the incident between the tenant and the person mowing the lawns. The description of this incident does not amount to anti- social behaviour.
One of the alleged incidents of anti-social behaviour was a telephone call between the tenant and the landlord. I am told that the telephone call was in relation to the tenant receiving notices that his rent was in arrears when it was not. I see on the file that at one stage an email was sent to the tenant advising that he was 377 days in arrears amounting to $22,140.00. I was told that this was an error, and the tenant received an apology for this. In addition, the tenant was receiving notices automatically generated telling him that he was one day in arrears. At the hearing the landlord said that these could not be stopped yet the tenant said that the previous tenant had managed to do so.
The landlord did not produce a recording of the telephone call or advise whether these calls were recorded. In the absence of a recording or other evidence it is the landlord’s evidence against the tenant’s in relation to this incident.
The landlord’s application for termination is dismissed on the basis that there was a procedural error in the notices given and because there was insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant engaged in any anti-social behaviour.
Of concern is that when I advised the landlord that he was unsuccessful with his application he responded by saying that the tenant was on notice and that everything he does will be watched and recorded from hereon in. The landlord is reminded that the tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment as provided by section 38 of the Act and that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
As the landlord has not succeeded with his application I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5020031 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 19, 92 Princes Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5020031 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 19, 92 Princes Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062,

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