What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5089651?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Terry Baker at Unit/Flat 101, 60 Hendon Avenue, Mount Albert,

How much money was awarded in case 5089651?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5089651?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5089651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11173102-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5089651?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Terry Baker at Unit/Flat 101, 60 Hendon Avenue, Mount Albert,

How much money was awarded in case 5089651?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5089651?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5089651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11173102-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 101, 60 Hendon Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5089651 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Terry Baker at Unit/Flat 101, 60 Hendon Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025 is terminated and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 pm Friday 13 December 2024.

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 under section 55A Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”) or, alternatively, under section 56(1) RTA because the tenant has repeatedly breached his duty under section 40(2)(c) RTA by interfering with his neighbours’ reasonable peace and comfort. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the landlord’s application, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is more likely than not.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding the landlord’s application, I have considered all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I have weighed this evidence to decide what is more likely. While I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, I have referred in this Order only to the most relevant or important evidence.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely. Facts
The landlord submitted copies of Notices to the tenant issued under section 55A RTA as follows: a. Notice 1 issued 6 September 2024. On 31 August 2024 around midnight the tenant was “seen standing on your balcony facing the community yelling and screaming obscene comments. This incident caused major disturbance to your neighbours.” This notice was issued because of complaints from a neighbour in a nearby complex and from neighbours in the landlord’s complex. b. Notice 2 issued 18 September 2024. “It was reported that on Tuesday 17 th September 2024 around 1 am, you were seen standing on your balcony facing the community yelling/screaming obscene language and threatening to kill your neighbour. This is causing disturbance and distress to your neighbours.” c. Notice 3 issued 22 November 2024. “On 12 November 2024 at around 5 pm, you and a neighbour fought each other in the carpark of your complex. You used a metal item to damage your neighbour’s vehicle and you threatened to kill them. You also threw items at each other and yelled at each other. Some of the other tenants in the complex witnessed this fight and it made them feel alarmed and distressed.” The tenant’s position
The tenant: a. Acknowledged the seriousness of the incident in Notice 3 but had no recollection of the incidents in the first two notices. He did not deny that they took place. b. Noted that this was not his “normal” or “usual behaviour” and accepted that “things have got out of hand”. c. Is suffering from concussion and is concerned that his behaviour has changed and is out of character. d. Noted that he had lived in the premises for two years without incident and that there have been no incidents since 12 November 2024. e. Had issued a trespass notice against the neighbours involved in that incident but the police had done nothing in relation to the neighbours breaching that notice. f. He had complained to the landlord about the behaviour of one of his neighbours, but no action had been taken. g. A member of the landlord’s staff has told him that this last incident was not his fault. h. The landlord had not offered any support to the tenant to cope with the situation he found himself in. i. Acknowledged that it was “wrong to respond” to the neighbour in the way he did, given the history of bad relations between him, this neighbour, their family and associates. j. Claimed that he was “no threat to anyone”. k. Is concerned by the “yelling that goes on all the time” in the complex and is worried about his own health and safety. l. Has asked the landlord for a transfer from this complex. The landlord’s position
The landlord: a. Confirmed that it was seeking termination because of the impact of the tenant’s behaviour on the other tenants in this and a neighbouring complex. b. Advised that it made the application for termination as a last resort and did not believe that there was any alternative resolution. c. Confirmed it had met with the tenant to discuss these complaints and to bring home to him the seriousness of the situation and the impact his behaviour was having on his neighbours. d. Denied that any member of its staff had acknowledged that the last incident was not the tenant’s fault. e. Gave evidence that the complaints had come from not just the neighbour involved in the last incident. They had come from other tenants and the owner of a neighbouring property. f. Denied that it had any knowledge of the tenant issuing a trespass notice to any party, or that it had received any complaint from the tenant about any other person in the complex. g. Noted that the tenant has not denied the contents of each notice, nor taken any steps to challenge their contents by filing an application to the Tribunal. h. Agreed that there had been no further incidents since 12 November 2024, a period of three weeks. The law and decision
Under section 55A RTA, 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 RTA 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 determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant. The behaviour complained of in the notices reasonably caused the neighbours alarm, distress and nuisance that was more than minor.
The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the RTA 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 this order for termination of the tenancy.
Because the landlord’s application under section 55A RTA has been successful, it is not necessary to consider its application under section 56(1) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5089651 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 101, 60 Hendon Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5089651 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 101, 60 Hendon Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland

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