What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4647891 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Ricardo Karangaroa and [Tenant 1] at [Tenancy address

How much money was awarded in case 4647891?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4647891?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4647891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9345985-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4647891 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Ricardo Karangaroa and [Tenant 1] at [Tenancy address

How much money was awarded in case 4647891?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4647891?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4647891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9345985-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4647891 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Ricardo Karangaroa and [Tenant 1] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm on Monday 25 September 2023.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and [Tenant 1] names and identifying details.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative] attended the hearing representing the landlord. [Tenant 1] attended, Mr Karangaroa did not as he is currently incarcerated.
The landlord has applied to terminate the periodic tenancy as on 30 July Mr Karangaroa allegedly assaulted a neighbour. He was arrested by Police and has been charged with threatens to kill/do grievous bodily harm and wounds with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He is currently remanded in custody and his next court appearance is on 11 September.
The Police advise that Mr Karangaroa held a filleting knife while verbally threatening the neighbour and punched him in the head at least six times. The event occurred at the tenancy address and resulted in the neighbour suffering extensive injuries requiring surgery.
[The landlord/s] says they cannot continue the tenancy as they and the neighbours remain in fear of the tenants. They do not send their agents around anymore as they are concerned for their safety and are aware Mr Karangaroa has gang affiliates. They say the neighbours are too scared to provide any evidence to the Tribunal. They also say that should the tenancy not be terminated, they would end their agency relationship with the owner as they consider it a danger to their staff.
[Tenant 1] wishes to continue the tenancy for her and her three children. She says she will not allow Mr Karangaroa to the house if he is released, and their relationship is over.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) directs that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault any neighbour of the premises.
The Tribunal may however refuse to make an order under section 55 only if it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy) and the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the sort (section 55(2)RTA).
[Tenant 1] did not see what happened, so she is unsure the extent of the event although she does not think the neighbour was seriously harmed as she saw him walk away and he has remained in the house ever since.
The onus of proving the claim is on the landlord here as applicant. The required standard is the civil standard of “balance of probabilities “or what is “more likely than not”. On the basis of the Police report and [The landlord’s representative]’s oral evidence that she spoke to the neighbour’s relative, I find it more likely than not that Mr Karangaroa did assault the neighbour. I note that this finding does not have a bearing on the criminal proceedings as the standard of proof is different in that jurisdiction and the charges are more than mere assault which is what I have found.
Accordingly, I find it more likely than not that Mr Karangaroa did assault the direct neighbour to the tenancy premise. Therefore, I must terminate the tenancy unless I am satisfied the breach has been remedied and is not likely to happen again.
The High Court in Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd HC Christchurch CIV-2004- 409-717, 2 July 2004 (Collins) noted that “A threat once made, or an assault once committed, cannot be remedied”. The court went on to say that despite that, the Tribunal should still consider whether the loss can be compensated for and whether further breaches are likely. In following the High Court, I do find that the assault occurred and cannot be remedied, however I also consider the wider circumstances.
[Tenant 1] says such an event is unlikely to happen again as she will not allow Mr Karangaroa back if he is released. She accepts he has gang affiliations but is clear they have nothing to do with her.
I accept that right now [Tenant 1] is genuine in her view to not allow Mr Karangaroa back. However, I am not satisfied that she would be able to maintain that position indefinitely. [Tenant 1] does have a protection order against Mr Karangaroa however it pre-dates the tenancy. Mr Karangaroa is the father of her children and although she tells me they have been separated for some time, he still has regularly been at the tenancy address and remains as a named tenant on the tenancy.
There is no evidence as to the likelihood of Mr Karangaroa remaining incarcerated as he is only facing charges at this time. Accordingly, I accept there remains a risk that he may return and note that he is deemed innocent in the criminal jurisdiction until proven otherwise.
Accordingly, after considering this situation carefully, I cannot be satisfied that further breaches are unlikely. I do not make this finding lightly as it is a sad and difficult situation for [Tenant 1] and her children to lose their home of two years due to the actions of Mr Karangaroa. However, the fact remains that he is still a tenant of this property and therefore entitled to reside there. He has seriously assaulted a neighbour; an assault the District Court takes so seriously that he is currently remanded in custody.
Therefore, I terminate the tenancy. [The landlord’s representative/s] proposes a 28-day period for [Tenant 1] to vacate and I agree this is reasonable. Accordingly, the tenancy will end on Monday 25 September 2023. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest. The landlord has applied for suppression and as they were successful in their application, I allow that. I also consider it appropriate to suppress [Tenant 1] identifying details as she is a relatively innocent victim of these circumstances and as such, I do not consider it in the public interest to publish her name.

Order

The tenancy of Ricardo Karangaroa and [Tenant 1] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm on Monday 25 September 2023.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and [Tenant 1] names and identifying details.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative] attended the hearing representing the landlord. [Tenant 1] attended, Mr Karangaroa did not as he is currently incarcerated.
The landlord has applied to terminate the periodic tenancy as on 30 July Mr Karangaroa allegedly assaulted a neighbour. He was arrested by Police and has been charged with threatens to kill/do grievous bodily harm and wounds with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He is currently remanded in custody and his next court appearance is on 11 September.
The Police advise that Mr Karangaroa held a filleting knife while verbally threatening the neighbour and punched him in the head at least six times. The event occurred at the tenancy address and resulted in the neighbour suffering extensive injuries requiring surgery.
[The landlord/s] says they cannot continue the tenancy as they and the neighbours remain in fear of the tenants. They do not send their agents around anymore as they are concerned for their safety and are aware Mr Karangaroa has gang affiliates. They say the neighbours are too scared to provide any evidence to the Tribunal. They also say that should the tenancy not be terminated, they would end their agency relationship with the owner as they consider it a danger to their staff.
[Tenant 1] wishes to continue the tenancy for her and her three children. She says she will not allow Mr Karangaroa to the house if he is released, and their relationship is over.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) directs that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault any neighbour of the premises.
The Tribunal may however refuse to make an order under section 55 only if it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy) and the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the sort (section 55(2)RTA).
[Tenant 1] did not see what happened, so she is unsure the extent of the event although she does not think the neighbour was seriously harmed as she saw him walk away and he has remained in the house ever since.
The onus of proving the claim is on the landlord here as applicant. The required standard is the civil standard of “balance of probabilities “or what is “more likely than not”. On the basis of the Police report and [The landlord’s representative]’s oral evidence that she spoke to the neighbour’s relative, I find it more likely than not that Mr Karangaroa did assault the neighbour. I note that this finding does not have a bearing on the criminal proceedings as the standard of proof is different in that jurisdiction and the charges are more than mere assault which is what I have found.
Accordingly, I find it more likely than not that Mr Karangaroa did assault the direct neighbour to the tenancy premise. Therefore, I must terminate the tenancy unless I am satisfied the breach has been remedied and is not likely to happen again.
The High Court in Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd HC Christchurch CIV-2004- 409-717, 2 July 2004 (Collins) noted that “A threat once made, or an assault once committed, cannot be remedied”. The court went on to say that despite that, the Tribunal should still consider whether the loss can be compensated for and whether further breaches are likely. In following the High Court, I do find that the assault occurred and cannot be remedied, however I also consider the wider circumstances.
[Tenant 1] says such an event is unlikely to happen again as she will not allow Mr Karangaroa back if he is released. She accepts he has gang affiliations but is clear they have nothing to do with her.
I accept that right now [Tenant 1] is genuine in her view to not allow Mr Karangaroa back. However, I am not satisfied that she would be able to maintain that position indefinitely. [Tenant 1] does have a protection order against Mr Karangaroa however it pre-dates the tenancy. Mr Karangaroa is the father of her children and although she tells me they have been separated for some time, he still has regularly been at the tenancy address and remains as a named tenant on the tenancy.
There is no evidence as to the likelihood of Mr Karangaroa remaining incarcerated as he is only facing charges at this time. Accordingly, I accept there remains a risk that he may return and note that he is deemed innocent in the criminal jurisdiction until proven otherwise.
Accordingly, after considering this situation carefully, I cannot be satisfied that further breaches are unlikely. I do not make this finding lightly as it is a sad and difficult situation for [Tenant 1] and her children to lose their home of two years due to the actions of Mr Karangaroa. However, the fact remains that he is still a tenant of this property and therefore entitled to reside there. He has seriously assaulted a neighbour; an assault the District Court takes so seriously that he is currently remanded in custody.
Therefore, I terminate the tenancy. [The landlord’s representative/s] proposes a 28-day period for [Tenant 1] to vacate and I agree this is reasonable. Accordingly, the tenancy will end on Monday 25 September 2023. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest. The landlord has applied for suppression and as they were successful in their application, I allow that. I also consider it appropriate to suppress [Tenant 1] identifying details as she is a relatively innocent victim of these circumstances and as such, I do not consider it in the public interest to publish her name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4647891 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4647891 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions