Peter Collins says he simply used the notices on the Tenancy Services website to file an application to evict a tenant for anti-social behaviour.

She lived in a block of five flats in Bush Grove and had a two-year fixed term tenancy that started in December last year.

Many landlords are becoming confused about what the new law says when applying to the tribunal for tenancy terminations.

Some of the grounds apply only to periodic tenancies and fixed-term tenancies are exempt as Collins found out.

Collins had issued three anti-social behaviour notices within 90 days and lodged an application to the tribunal for termination of the tenancy within the required timeframe of 28 days of the last notice.

However, the tribunal dismissed his application saying it could not be used for a fixed-term tenancy, only a periodic tenancy and the correct notice must be given at all times.

The new sweeping tenancy laws allow landlords to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy after they have served three anti-social behaviour notices within a 90-day timeframe as long as they get their application to the tribunal within 28 days of the last notice, if it is a periodic tenancy.

Collins applied for termination of the tenancy on the basis that the tenant had interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of other people residing in the neighbourhood.

Collins told the tribunal he received reports from other occupiers of the building about disturbances caused by the tenant, or visitors to the premises, including yelling and indecent language.

On two occasions police were called to the premises.

The tenant acknowledged there were some issues caused by a former boyfriend which resulted in police being called but that stopped some time ago.

She also said there had been some yelling by a family member, which she dealt with, but noise will inevitably travel in a shared building and she could also hear neighbours.

The tenant claimed she was being unfairly targeted and the complaints had been blown out of proportion. She was adamant she did not set out to annoy and sought a peaceful life.

Adjudicator K Stirling said while Collins had served notices on the tenant that were not a remedy available to him, he should have served 14-day notices requiring the tenant to remedy the breach within the required period before the tribunal could consider termination.

“I appreciate that the recent amendments to the RTA containing additional grounds for termination may be confusing for landlords and note the landlord’s advice he simply used the notices on the Tenancy Services website, but correct notice must be given.

“Even had the correct notices been served, I find there is insufficient evidence before the tribunal regarding the detail of the behaviour complained of and the impact on neighbours,” Stirling said.

“While, the landlord has presented a letter from the body corporate secretary summarising complaints she has received from other people; and the landlord has given evidence he has been contacted directly by other residents expressing concerns, there is no direct evidence from the affected complainants.”

Generally, Stirling said, there is no substitute for oral evidence given in person by an eyewitness of their direct observations and experience, and the testing of this evidence by questioning.

“While the tribunal can accept indirect ‘hearsay’ evidence and, indeed, written statements from witnesses, where the witness is not available to give their evidence in person or to be questioned about their evidence, it carries less weight.

“I am not satisfied there is enough evidence of the tenant breaching s40(2)(c) RTA and certainly not to an extent that justifies termination of the tenancy.”