Foul-mouthed, argumentative, tenant evicted from Whangārei property after neighbours complain

A woman was evicted from a Whangārei property after neighbours complained of anti-social behaviour on a range of occasions. Photo / 123RF

A foul-mouthed, loud and argumentative tenant has been evicted from her Whangārei unit after multiple neighbours complained about disturbances she caused.

Contact Property Management Limited took its concerns about the woman to the Tenancy Tribunal earlier this year. She was evicted after a hearing in May.

The woman, in her 20s, had only rented the property - one of a block of units - for a week before the first complaints began to roll in. Neighbours were concerned about loud arguments and swearing coming from her unit. Further complaints about similar incidents followed, including one attended by police.

By the time the case was heard by the Tenancy Tribunal, the property manager had issued the tenant with four anti-social behaviour notices recording a pattern of reported nuisance behaviour over a 90-day period.

The tenant denied the incidents alleged in the notices, but tribunal adjudicator Nicholas Blake said evidence provided was sufficient to show they “more than likely than not” happened - as per the Tenancy Tribunal’s standard of proof.

“There have been multiple incidences of loud arguments, yelling, and swearing, at (the woman’s) unit during her brief tenancy. Those incidents almost certainly involve her and (a male associate),” Blake said in decision documents published online. On one occasion a loud argument was followed by vehicles leaving the unit “in a dangerous manner”.

“The fact that (the property manager) received multiple complaints from several different neighbours, all alleging the same type of disturbance shows that this is not an instance of false or exaggerated complaints by an overly sensitive or vindictive neighbour.”

“Persons living in close proximity (such as in a block of units) must accept some interference with their peace and privacy from their neighbours. However, these types of disturbance detailed in the complaints made by (the woman’s) neighbours go significantly beyond this. The fact that this is a well-established pattern of behaviour by (the tenant and her male associate) is supported by a comment in the police report that the 9 February incident was ‘another incident between a well-known pair.”

Blake said he was satisfied that:

a/ On at least three occasions during a 90-day period the tenant and/or a person in the premises with the tenant’s consent, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and

b/ On each occasion the landlord gave the tenant notice of the anti-social behaviour, providing other relevant information as detailed in the relevant section of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986; and

c/ There are no circumstances that would make it unfair for the tribunal to terminate the tenancy.

The landlord had submitted alternative grounds for termination, specifically breaches of the rules forbidding a vehicle or machinery that was more than a month past its warrant of fitness or registration period being at the address, and that only one person was allowed to live at the address. Blake said that because the eviction order was made due to anti-social behaviour, those other grounds - which had their own particular complexities - didn’t need to be considered.

Sarah Curtis is a news reporter for the Northern Advocate, focusing on a wide range of issues. She has nearly 20 years’ experience in journalism, much of which she spent court reporting. She is passionate about covering stories that make a difference.