What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5132612?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Samonea Walters at 45 Willard Street, Spreydon, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 5132612?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5132612?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5132612?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11397661-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5132612?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Samonea Walters at 45 Willard Street, Spreydon, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 5132612?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5132612?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5132612?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11397661-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

45 Willard Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5132612 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Samonea Walters at 45 Willard Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Sunday 9 February 2025 PROVIDED HOWEVER that the landlord can request an urgent telephone hearing to seek earlier possession if there is a further incident of anti-social behaviour between 27 January and 9 February 2025.
Samonea Walters must pay Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust $27.00 immediately being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by phone. Mr Olds and Mr Woodbury represented the landlord.
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 at the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is the repeated playing of loud music through to the early hours of the morning resulting in multiple complaints from other tenants and in call-outs from the Christchurch City Council noise control staff, and on one occasion, the police.
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 considered the evidence presented by the parties. The landlord produced documentary evidence that proves the nature of the noise complaints, when they occurred, and what happened as a result.
The tenant accepted that she had caused noise from loud music when she was having drinks and parties. She said she was now too scared to play music. And she said that other tenants caused noise as well. She said she felt victimised because no action was taken to end the tenancies of other tenants who caused noise.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred at the premises by the tenant. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required by 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; the law does not provide for that.
I have however set the possession date out by 2 weeks so the tenant who has two children can work with agencies to find alternative accommodation.
If the tenant causes further breaches amounting to anti-social behaviour between now and the possession date, the landlord can apply to have the possession dated brought forward. I will leave the application open until 9 February 2025.

Order

The tenancy of Samonea Walters at 45 Willard Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Sunday 9 February 2025 PROVIDED HOWEVER that the landlord can request an urgent telephone hearing to seek earlier possession if there is a further incident of anti-social behaviour between 27 January and 9 February 2025.
Samonea Walters must pay Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust $27.00 immediately being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by phone. Mr Olds and Mr Woodbury represented the landlord.
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 at the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is the repeated playing of loud music through to the early hours of the morning resulting in multiple complaints from other tenants and in call-outs from the Christchurch City Council noise control staff, and on one occasion, the police.
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 considered the evidence presented by the parties. The landlord produced documentary evidence that proves the nature of the noise complaints, when they occurred, and what happened as a result.
The tenant accepted that she had caused noise from loud music when she was having drinks and parties. She said she was now too scared to play music. And she said that other tenants caused noise as well. She said she felt victimised because no action was taken to end the tenancies of other tenants who caused noise.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred at the premises by the tenant. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required by 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; the law does not provide for that.
I have however set the possession date out by 2 weeks so the tenant who has two children can work with agencies to find alternative accommodation.
If the tenant causes further breaches amounting to anti-social behaviour between now and the possession date, the landlord can apply to have the possession dated brought forward. I will leave the application open until 9 February 2025.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5132612 — Harassment at 45 Willard Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5132612 — Harassment at 45 Willard Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions