What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5078619?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Matthew Rihari at Unit/Flat 12, 26-30 Golf Road, Tahunanui,

How much money was awarded in case 5078619?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5078619?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5078619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11200406-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5078619?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Matthew Rihari at Unit/Flat 12, 26-30 Golf Road, Tahunanui,

How much money was awarded in case 5078619?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5078619?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5078619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11200406-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 12, 26-30 Golf Road, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5078619 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5078619 — 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
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

The tenancy of Matthew Rihari at Unit/Flat 12, 26-30 Golf Road, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Anyos Gonczy, at 11.59pm on Sunday 15 December 2024.
Mathew Rihari will pay Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Anyos Gonczy the sun of $27.00 immediately.

Reasons

The hearing of the application was conducted by video. The tenant did not connect to the video link, so attempts were made to contact him on the phone number provided but these were unsuccessful. I am satisfied the tenant received notice of the hearing. Ms Taylor represented the landlord.
The premises are part of a repurposed motel comprising a number of units, each unit being in close proximity to the neighbouring properties. The units are each subject to individual tenancies.
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: •On 21 August 2024 the tenants son, while living at the premises without consent, exhibited aggressive behaviour to another tenant in the shared laundry. •On 5 September 2024 the tenant was playing loud music and had people coming and going from his property from 11:00 PM in the evening and tool 4:00 AM the next morning. •On the early afternoon of 15 September the tenants son was banging and kicking on the side of a neighbours property. •On 24 October 2024 the tenant was showing signs of being under the influence of illicit substances end or and toxicated was playing loud music and singing outside and disturbing the surrounding neighbours.
The application for termination was filed on 20 November 2024 but the landlord gave evidence that she continues to receive emails from concerned tenants about the ongoing anti-social behaviour of the tenant. Two statements were provided to the tribunal by tenants which related to events after the date of filing he application.
One statement referred to the evening of 14 November where the tenant had loud music playing and continued partying with friends until 12:15am. The second statement referred to the evening of 24 November 2024 where the tenant had friends over from 9:00 PM until 5:00 AM where they were drinking and playing loud music throughout the night and early 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 taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above. I have also taken into account that while the additional two statements provided to the Tribunal postdate the application, it shows that despite the notices of antisocial behaviour being served on the tenant there has been no modification in his behaviour.
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.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
Because Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Anyos Gonczy has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5078619 — 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
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

The tenancy of Matthew Rihari at Unit/Flat 12, 26-30 Golf Road, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Anyos Gonczy, at 11.59pm on Sunday 15 December 2024.
Mathew Rihari will pay Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Anyos Gonczy the sun of $27.00 immediately.

Reasons

The hearing of the application was conducted by video. The tenant did not connect to the video link, so attempts were made to contact him on the phone number provided but these were unsuccessful. I am satisfied the tenant received notice of the hearing. Ms Taylor represented the landlord.
The premises are part of a repurposed motel comprising a number of units, each unit being in close proximity to the neighbouring properties. The units are each subject to individual tenancies.
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: •On 21 August 2024 the tenants son, while living at the premises without consent, exhibited aggressive behaviour to another tenant in the shared laundry. •On 5 September 2024 the tenant was playing loud music and had people coming and going from his property from 11:00 PM in the evening and tool 4:00 AM the next morning. •On the early afternoon of 15 September the tenants son was banging and kicking on the side of a neighbours property. •On 24 October 2024 the tenant was showing signs of being under the influence of illicit substances end or and toxicated was playing loud music and singing outside and disturbing the surrounding neighbours.
The application for termination was filed on 20 November 2024 but the landlord gave evidence that she continues to receive emails from concerned tenants about the ongoing anti-social behaviour of the tenant. Two statements were provided to the tribunal by tenants which related to events after the date of filing he application.
One statement referred to the evening of 14 November where the tenant had loud music playing and continued partying with friends until 12:15am. The second statement referred to the evening of 24 November 2024 where the tenant had friends over from 9:00 PM until 5:00 AM where they were drinking and playing loud music throughout the night and early 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 taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above. I have also taken into account that while the additional two statements provided to the Tribunal postdate the application, it shows that despite the notices of antisocial behaviour being served on the tenant there has been no modification in his behaviour.
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.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
Because Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Anyos Gonczy has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5078619 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 12, 26-30 Golf Road, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5078619 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 12, 26-30 Golf Road, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions