What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4711669 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 4711669?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4711669?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4711669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9945594-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4711669 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 4711669?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4711669?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4711669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9945594-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4711669 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 am on Wednesday 15 November 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing.
This decision relates to TT 4711669. It was heard at the same time as TT 4660449. For the purposes of certainty, I record that whilst the application for termination of the tenancy under TT 4660449 was dismissed, this application was still to be decided and supersedes the previous order in TT 4660449.
The tenancy commenced on 20 January 2021.The tenancy relates to premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”).
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy for a breach of the Tenancy Agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which is incapable of remedy. General Law
The applicant must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while “balance of probabilities” is a constant standard: “It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it.”
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: “[102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.”
Section 97(4) RTA provides that: “... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law.”
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities. Landlord Claim
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) RTA.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The landlord says that the tenant has breached s.55(1)(c) RTA. That section provides that a tenant must not assault or threaten to assault any neighbour of the premises. Assault
The landlord says that [The tenant’s co-occupant] has assaulted [The tenant’s neighbour].
[The tenant’s co-occupant] was at all times relevant to this enquiry, living with the tenant at the premises. A tenant is responsible for the actions of any other person residing at the premises with their authority. The tenant confirmed that [The tenant’s co-occupant] had been authorised to live at the premises when the incidents complained of occurred.
[The tenant’s neighbour] lives at the adjoining [neighbouring address] and is a neighbour.
The only evidence provided of the assault on [The tenant’s neighbour] was an undated Police acknowledgment form recording an incident of common assault or manual strangulation upon [The tenant’s neighbour]. The incident having been reported on 13 September 2023. The form does not set out that [The tenant’s co- occupant] was the accused, nor what has happened as a result of the offence.
No evidence by way of written statement or otherwise was provided from [The tenant’s neighbour].
The tenant’s evidence was that [The tenant’s co-occupant] has pleaded not guilty to the charge and that the matter had not been resolved.
The allegation is serious and the supporting evidence from the landlord limited. I do not accept that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to persuade me on the balance of probabilities that there has been an assault on the neighbour and the application is dismissed. Threat
The landlord says that the tenant has threatened [The tenant’s neighbour].
The evidence provided by the landlord includes a Police acknowledgement form and importantly, copies of the threatening messages. The specific txt messages are from the tenant. The tenant admitted in evidence having sent them to [The tenant’s neighbour].
The relevant messages are as follows; “Clearly your a dead bitch walking”.(sic) I’m gonna break your fuckin hands off your wrist you ugly inbreed looking c**t”(sic).
The tenant justified the messages by saying that the neighbour’s dog had been harassing his pigs.
A threat of assault is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by the use of force and does not require an intention or capacity to act on the threat. However, the threat must be deliberate, that is, the tenant intends it to be heard.
I am satisfied that the allegation of a threat by the tenant to the neighbour has been proven to the almost criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
The breach is not capable of remedy because the threat having been made cannot be remedied.
Would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?
In considering this issue, the Tribunal must consider the following; • The history of the tenancy. • Have there been persistent failure after repeated warnings? • The history of breaches, such that it would be unlikely that the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Was the breach deliberate or inadvertent? • Conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response?
The tenancy commenced in January 2021. I am not aware of any relevant previous history of complaints of this nature or repeated warnings.
The breach was deliberate, the tenant having messaged the neighbour.
The conduct of the landlord is not relevant to the dispute.
The threats made by the tenant were serious, being threats of really serious physical harm.
Having considered the specific threats, I am persuaded that termination of the tenancy is not a disproportionate response. The tenant attempted to minimise the nature and severity of the threats and to justify them as a reasonable response to perceived conduct of the neighbour and her relatives.
For the reasons given, I am satisfied that the breach is of such a nature that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
The application is proven, and the tenancy is terminated at 11.59 am on Wednesday 15 November 2023.
The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and the name of the landlord and neighbour are suppressed.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 am on Wednesday 15 November 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing.
This decision relates to TT 4711669. It was heard at the same time as TT 4660449. For the purposes of certainty, I record that whilst the application for termination of the tenancy under TT 4660449 was dismissed, this application was still to be decided and supersedes the previous order in TT 4660449.
The tenancy commenced on 20 January 2021.The tenancy relates to premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”).
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy for a breach of the Tenancy Agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which is incapable of remedy. General Law
The applicant must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while “balance of probabilities” is a constant standard: “It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it.”
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: “[102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.”
Section 97(4) RTA provides that: “... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law.”
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities. Landlord Claim
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) RTA.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The landlord says that the tenant has breached s.55(1)(c) RTA. That section provides that a tenant must not assault or threaten to assault any neighbour of the premises. Assault
The landlord says that [The tenant’s co-occupant] has assaulted [The tenant’s neighbour].
[The tenant’s co-occupant] was at all times relevant to this enquiry, living with the tenant at the premises. A tenant is responsible for the actions of any other person residing at the premises with their authority. The tenant confirmed that [The tenant’s co-occupant] had been authorised to live at the premises when the incidents complained of occurred.
[The tenant’s neighbour] lives at the adjoining [neighbouring address] and is a neighbour.
The only evidence provided of the assault on [The tenant’s neighbour] was an undated Police acknowledgment form recording an incident of common assault or manual strangulation upon [The tenant’s neighbour]. The incident having been reported on 13 September 2023. The form does not set out that [The tenant’s co- occupant] was the accused, nor what has happened as a result of the offence.
No evidence by way of written statement or otherwise was provided from [The tenant’s neighbour].
The tenant’s evidence was that [The tenant’s co-occupant] has pleaded not guilty to the charge and that the matter had not been resolved.
The allegation is serious and the supporting evidence from the landlord limited. I do not accept that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to persuade me on the balance of probabilities that there has been an assault on the neighbour and the application is dismissed. Threat
The landlord says that the tenant has threatened [The tenant’s neighbour].
The evidence provided by the landlord includes a Police acknowledgement form and importantly, copies of the threatening messages. The specific txt messages are from the tenant. The tenant admitted in evidence having sent them to [The tenant’s neighbour].
The relevant messages are as follows; “Clearly your a dead bitch walking”.(sic) I’m gonna break your fuckin hands off your wrist you ugly inbreed looking c**t”(sic).
The tenant justified the messages by saying that the neighbour’s dog had been harassing his pigs.
A threat of assault is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by the use of force and does not require an intention or capacity to act on the threat. However, the threat must be deliberate, that is, the tenant intends it to be heard.
I am satisfied that the allegation of a threat by the tenant to the neighbour has been proven to the almost criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
The breach is not capable of remedy because the threat having been made cannot be remedied.
Would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?
In considering this issue, the Tribunal must consider the following; • The history of the tenancy. • Have there been persistent failure after repeated warnings? • The history of breaches, such that it would be unlikely that the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Was the breach deliberate or inadvertent? • Conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response?
The tenancy commenced in January 2021. I am not aware of any relevant previous history of complaints of this nature or repeated warnings.
The breach was deliberate, the tenant having messaged the neighbour.
The conduct of the landlord is not relevant to the dispute.
The threats made by the tenant were serious, being threats of really serious physical harm.
Having considered the specific threats, I am persuaded that termination of the tenancy is not a disproportionate response. The tenant attempted to minimise the nature and severity of the threats and to justify them as a reasonable response to perceived conduct of the neighbour and her relatives.
For the reasons given, I am satisfied that the breach is of such a nature that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
The application is proven, and the tenancy is terminated at 11.59 am on Wednesday 15 November 2023.
The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and the name of the landlord and neighbour are suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4711669 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4711669 — 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