What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5057008?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5057008?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5057008?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5057008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11116842-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5057008?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5057008?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5057008?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5057008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11116842-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

120 Weraroa Road, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5057008 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing.
The tenant did not attend by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The calls could not be connected. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice has been given.
The tenancy is periodic.
The landlord has applied to have the tenancy terminated for anti-social behaviour by the tenant.
The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord claimed that the tenant had acted in an antisocial manner by doing the following: a. Yelling at neighbours. b. Walking down his driveway waving an operating chainsaw. c. Standing in the roadway shining a torch at oncoming cars. d. Pressing the horn on his car continually. e. Running out onto the road between passing traffic. f. Throwing something into a neighbour’s property.
Section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy if; on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission (other than the landlord or a person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority), engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy. (own emphasis).
The RTA defines what is anti-social behaviour and provides for strict processes that should be followed by the landlord when giving notices for anti-social behaviour that may lead to termination.
The landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant has committed antisocial behaviours because: a) The notices describe the behaviour, but do not always specify times or dates that the behaviour occurred that would allow me to conclude that the tenant had been present at the property or that the tenant had engaged in the behaviour. As an example, one notice refers to the behaviour as “...has been happening on and off for the last two weeks.” b) There was a lack of evidence of what the behaviour was, who did it and when it was alleged to occur. An example, one complaint is of the tenant yelling. I have no evidence of what was being yelled by the tenant, at who, and for specifically how long. c) The complaint of the tenant shining a light at oncoming cars and running out onto the street, does not relate to the premises ( see s.55A(2)(a) RTA and the need for the behaviour to be on the premise and be in connection with the tenancy). The landlord tells me this is because some of the neighbours may be frightened to come and give evidence against a neighbour, especially when the neighbours are concerned about the general behaviour of the tenant. d) Unless the Tribunal has evidence directly from the people who saw or heard the antisocial behaviour, or has evidence such as photographs or videos which show the antisocial behaviour or Police reports or noise control reports which describe the behaviour, it cannot act simply on what the landlord has been told by neighbours. When the landlord gives evidence of what they have been told, but not witnessed themselves it is hearsay. Hearsay evidence is evidence that is not directly seen, heard or spoken by the person that is giving the evidence to the Tribunal. Whilst the Tribunal can accept hearsay evidence it is always given much less weight than evidence given by the person who was there, that is because the person who was there can answer questions about what they saw or heard and the Adjudicator can make an assessment on the witnesses credibility. e) The evidence relating to the chainsaw and the sounding of the horn was vague and hearsay.
Where witnesses to the behaviour are not prepared to provide evidence of what was seen or heard, it will always be difficult for a landlord to provide sufficient proof to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of s.55A have been met.
Whilst I sympathise with the neighbours, the requirements of s.55A RTA set out a strict process and evidentiary requirements. Those requirements have not been met and the application is dismissed. The tenant should not take this order as support for his actions. Continuing anti-social behaviour will no doubt result in the landlord applying to the Tribunal again.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application for suppression is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing.
The tenant did not attend by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The calls could not be connected. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice has been given.
The tenancy is periodic.
The landlord has applied to have the tenancy terminated for anti-social behaviour by the tenant.
The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord claimed that the tenant had acted in an antisocial manner by doing the following: a. Yelling at neighbours. b. Walking down his driveway waving an operating chainsaw. c. Standing in the roadway shining a torch at oncoming cars. d. Pressing the horn on his car continually. e. Running out onto the road between passing traffic. f. Throwing something into a neighbour’s property.
Section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy if; on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission (other than the landlord or a person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority), engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy. (own emphasis).
The RTA defines what is anti-social behaviour and provides for strict processes that should be followed by the landlord when giving notices for anti-social behaviour that may lead to termination.
The landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant has committed antisocial behaviours because: a) The notices describe the behaviour, but do not always specify times or dates that the behaviour occurred that would allow me to conclude that the tenant had been present at the property or that the tenant had engaged in the behaviour. As an example, one notice refers to the behaviour as “...has been happening on and off for the last two weeks.” b) There was a lack of evidence of what the behaviour was, who did it and when it was alleged to occur. An example, one complaint is of the tenant yelling. I have no evidence of what was being yelled by the tenant, at who, and for specifically how long. c) The complaint of the tenant shining a light at oncoming cars and running out onto the street, does not relate to the premises ( see s.55A(2)(a) RTA and the need for the behaviour to be on the premise and be in connection with the tenancy). The landlord tells me this is because some of the neighbours may be frightened to come and give evidence against a neighbour, especially when the neighbours are concerned about the general behaviour of the tenant. d) Unless the Tribunal has evidence directly from the people who saw or heard the antisocial behaviour, or has evidence such as photographs or videos which show the antisocial behaviour or Police reports or noise control reports which describe the behaviour, it cannot act simply on what the landlord has been told by neighbours. When the landlord gives evidence of what they have been told, but not witnessed themselves it is hearsay. Hearsay evidence is evidence that is not directly seen, heard or spoken by the person that is giving the evidence to the Tribunal. Whilst the Tribunal can accept hearsay evidence it is always given much less weight than evidence given by the person who was there, that is because the person who was there can answer questions about what they saw or heard and the Adjudicator can make an assessment on the witnesses credibility. e) The evidence relating to the chainsaw and the sounding of the horn was vague and hearsay.
Where witnesses to the behaviour are not prepared to provide evidence of what was seen or heard, it will always be difficult for a landlord to provide sufficient proof to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of s.55A have been met.
Whilst I sympathise with the neighbours, the requirements of s.55A RTA set out a strict process and evidentiary requirements. Those requirements have not been met and the application is dismissed. The tenant should not take this order as support for his actions. Continuing anti-social behaviour will no doubt result in the landlord applying to the Tribunal again.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5057008 — Tenancy dispute at 120 Weraroa Road, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5057008 — Tenancy dispute at 120 Weraroa Road, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions