RE early termination for severe hardship on account of the tenant’s persistent anti-social behaviour
Landlords should not presume to be able to rely on letters or unsworn statements to substantiate an anti-social claim.
Background in brief
The tenancy in question is a single occupant fixed term tenancy at an Auckland CBD apartment. The building is controlled by a body corporate and employs
a building manager. Over a period of 2 months, the tenant engaged in at least 6 separate instances of anti-social behaviour. And though the anti-social
provisions under the RTAA2020 are not yet in effect, the behaviours are such that the landlord considers himself as being made to suffer severe and
undue hardship should the tenancy be allowed to continue.
The landlord (an APIA member) applied to the Tribunal for early termination and attached a letter from the building manager evidencing the seriousness
and scope of the tenant’s behaviour.
The adjudicator dismissed the letter outright telling the landlord that an application for early termination is so against the interests of the respondent
that for it to be successful, a witness must attend to attest to the anti-social behaviour and be subject to reasonable questioning. She followed through
with her rebuke by suggesting that the letter could have been fabricated. It was not.
The issue that concerns APIA and future applicants
Witness testimonies are not common at Tribunal hearings, at least not in the numerous orders we’ve reviewed over the years. Though on the Tribunal’s website
applicants are encouraged to submit written evidence such as tenancy agreement, rent summary, 14-day notices, correspondences, tradesperson quotes,
bank statements/accounts, inspection reports, rent book, photos and letters, this latest happening would suggest a...
