Two Auckland tenants are on their last warning from their landlord after holding loud late-night gatherings, some during the level 4 lockdown.
The pair's landlord had tried to get them evicted but they've been given one more chance because of the difficulties of holding a Tenancy Tribunal hearing via teleconference.
Property management company Charta Management Ltd applied to the Tenancy Tribunal for the right to evict Anesili Ah Ken and Patrick Shane Lui from house in Sunnyvale, west Auckland, due to "anti-social behaviour".
As well as large loud parties, in one instance a tenant allegedly urinated against a gate in full view of a neighbour.
• 'Emergency' rental clause helps commercial tenants, landlords
• Landlord took photo of tenant in bed, ordered to pay her $600
• Covid-19: Kiwi landlord and family must wait until tenants decide to move out
• Covid 19 coronavirus: Surge in tenancy complaints
Charta was represented by a Ms Webber, who told the Tenancy Tribunal at Christchurch that two neighbours had made numerous complaints about noise and other behaviour dating back to January.
Some of the complaints had come during level 4, when the entire country was meant to be sticking to household bubbles.
A neighbour reported large groups of people at the premises on various occasions making noise until early hours of the morning, the tribunal's finding says.
"Ms Ah Ken at first denied having other persons at the premises [despite the neighbour's description and evidence of complaints to noise control]," adjudicator J Greene wrote in a May 12 finding.
"She then admitted having some family members at the premises in breach of the level 4 lockdown; on one occasion, the police visited the tenants about that."
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic urgent law changes meant the hearing could be held via teleconference. But Greene wrote that such hearings were difficult to conduct.
"The documentary evidence provides some support for the landlord's application and had the hearing been conducted in person with the evidence able to be tested more fully it is probable the tenancy would have been terminated," Green wrote.
"I did not find Ms Ah Ken's evidence to be very reliable. Her denials of causing any excessive noise which interferes with the peace and comfort of the neighbours was frankly not convincing."
In addition, "her apparent lack of concern about her partner urinating against a gate [which the neighbour reported seeing which concerned him because his young child might see as well] suggested to me that she does not consider that she and her partner are causing any disturbance at all", Greene wrote.
While the hearing was adjourned, the tribunal said the landlord could ask for it to be reconvened by the end of May at the nearest district court if there was any further antisocial behaviour from the tenants.
Any allegations of antisocial behaviour after that date would require a new application, Greene said.