What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5056550?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5056550?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5056550?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5056550?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11081118-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5056550?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5056550?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5056550?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5056550?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11081118-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

55 McParland Street, Elderslea, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5056550 — Harassment

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Johnson attended the hearing via video conference.
The tenants attended the hearing via teleconference.
Ms Johnson filed an application seeking the termination of the tenancy under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The law
Under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act, Ms. Johnson, as the landlord, must prove specific elements to terminate a tenancy on the grounds of antisocial behaviour. The essential elements that need to be proven: a. Occurrence and Repetition of Antisocial Behaviour: i. Section 55A requires that the behaviour has occurred on at least three separate occasions within a defined period. The anti-social behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes significant alarm, distress or nuisance. This period often spans 90 days, and each notice of antisocial behaviour must be spaced in a way that demonstrates persistent issues rather than a one-time or infrequent occurrence. b. Compliance with Notice Requirements: i. Each notice provided to the tenant regarding the antisocial behaviour must comply with specific content and format requirements. The notice should:
Clearly describe the antisocial behaviour; and
Include dates and details for each incident; and
Reference the 90-day period within which the repeated behaviours occurred; and
How many notices have been issued and advising the tenant of their legal right to challenge them. ii. This ensures that tenants are given fair warning and an opportunity to address or remedy the behaviour or challenge the contents of the notices. Burden of proof
The burden of proof lies with Ms Johnson. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Ms Johnson must provide sufficient evidence to substantiate each claim of antisocial behaviour, ideally with documented or witness-backed complaints. Since neighbours’ anonymity can impact the credibility of evidence, alternative forms of proof (e.g., recordings, written complaints from willing neighbours, or police reports) may strengthen the case. The case
I summarise each the tenants' evidence for each of the three antisocial behaviour notices:
First Notice (9 August 2024): a. Ms Johnson: Reported complaints from multiple neighbours about noise issues, including car revving, loud arguments, and disruptive comings and goings since the tenants moved in. b. Ms. Katu and Mr. Cuff: Disputed the accusations, admitting only to a minor dispute about a phone but denied any screaming or extensive car revving or car noise. They argued that some complaints were due to neighbours attributing noise from others to them.
Second Notice (19 October 2024): a. Ms. Johnson: Cited an incident involving a physical altercation between the tenants, a damaged gate, and police involvement. b. Ms. Katu and Mr. Cuff: Acknowledged and took responsibility for the incident and confirmed the gate had been repaired.
Third Notice (1 November 2024): a. Ms. Johnson: Reported complaints of loud arguments and screaming on two separate days (30 and 31 October 2024). b. Ms. Katu: Stated she was not home on October 30th and described the October 31st noise as the result of coordinating children for Halloween festivities, denying any severe altercation. Reason for Dismissing the Application
Lack of Sufficient Evidence: a. Ms. Johnson could not substantiate the complaints beyond the notices due to neighbours’ requests for anonymity, which limited evidence to hearsay. b. This issue is further complicated because the tenants dispute most of the allegations of anti-social behaviour. This means I cannot be satisfied with the balance of probabilities that the alleged anti-social behaviour (except 19 October 2024) has been proven.
Non-Compliance with Notice Requirements: a. The second and third notices did not meet the specific legal requirements under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act, which mandates a specific format and content. Only the first notice complied with these requirements, rendering the remaining notices incomplete. b. In the second and third notices, Ms Johnson did not say that anti-social behaviour had arisen during the same 90-day period and advised the tenants of their right to challenge the notices. c. Failure to comply with the notice requirements under s55A(2) renders the notices incomplete.
The applicant has not discharged the burden of proof regarding the alleged antisocial behaviour, and the second and third notices did not comply with the requirements of s55A(2)(iii) and (iv) RTA.
Accordingly, the application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Johnson attended the hearing via video conference.
The tenants attended the hearing via teleconference.
Ms Johnson filed an application seeking the termination of the tenancy under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The law
Under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act, Ms. Johnson, as the landlord, must prove specific elements to terminate a tenancy on the grounds of antisocial behaviour. The essential elements that need to be proven: a. Occurrence and Repetition of Antisocial Behaviour: i. Section 55A requires that the behaviour has occurred on at least three separate occasions within a defined period. The anti-social behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes significant alarm, distress or nuisance. This period often spans 90 days, and each notice of antisocial behaviour must be spaced in a way that demonstrates persistent issues rather than a one-time or infrequent occurrence. b. Compliance with Notice Requirements: i. Each notice provided to the tenant regarding the antisocial behaviour must comply with specific content and format requirements. The notice should:
Clearly describe the antisocial behaviour; and
Include dates and details for each incident; and
Reference the 90-day period within which the repeated behaviours occurred; and
How many notices have been issued and advising the tenant of their legal right to challenge them. ii. This ensures that tenants are given fair warning and an opportunity to address or remedy the behaviour or challenge the contents of the notices. Burden of proof
The burden of proof lies with Ms Johnson. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Ms Johnson must provide sufficient evidence to substantiate each claim of antisocial behaviour, ideally with documented or witness-backed complaints. Since neighbours’ anonymity can impact the credibility of evidence, alternative forms of proof (e.g., recordings, written complaints from willing neighbours, or police reports) may strengthen the case. The case
I summarise each the tenants' evidence for each of the three antisocial behaviour notices:
First Notice (9 August 2024): a. Ms Johnson: Reported complaints from multiple neighbours about noise issues, including car revving, loud arguments, and disruptive comings and goings since the tenants moved in. b. Ms. Katu and Mr. Cuff: Disputed the accusations, admitting only to a minor dispute about a phone but denied any screaming or extensive car revving or car noise. They argued that some complaints were due to neighbours attributing noise from others to them.
Second Notice (19 October 2024): a. Ms. Johnson: Cited an incident involving a physical altercation between the tenants, a damaged gate, and police involvement. b. Ms. Katu and Mr. Cuff: Acknowledged and took responsibility for the incident and confirmed the gate had been repaired.
Third Notice (1 November 2024): a. Ms. Johnson: Reported complaints of loud arguments and screaming on two separate days (30 and 31 October 2024). b. Ms. Katu: Stated she was not home on October 30th and described the October 31st noise as the result of coordinating children for Halloween festivities, denying any severe altercation. Reason for Dismissing the Application
Lack of Sufficient Evidence: a. Ms. Johnson could not substantiate the complaints beyond the notices due to neighbours’ requests for anonymity, which limited evidence to hearsay. b. This issue is further complicated because the tenants dispute most of the allegations of anti-social behaviour. This means I cannot be satisfied with the balance of probabilities that the alleged anti-social behaviour (except 19 October 2024) has been proven.
Non-Compliance with Notice Requirements: a. The second and third notices did not meet the specific legal requirements under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act, which mandates a specific format and content. Only the first notice complied with these requirements, rendering the remaining notices incomplete. b. In the second and third notices, Ms Johnson did not say that anti-social behaviour had arisen during the same 90-day period and advised the tenants of their right to challenge the notices. c. Failure to comply with the notice requirements under s55A(2) renders the notices incomplete.
The applicant has not discharged the burden of proof regarding the alleged antisocial behaviour, and the second and third notices did not comply with the requirements of s55A(2)(iii) and (iv) RTA.
Accordingly, the application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5056550 — Harassment at 55 McParland Street, Elderslea, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5056550 — Harassment at 55 McParland Street, Elderslea, Upper Hutt 5018

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