What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4730769?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jonathan Wayne Sanders at Unit/Flat 1, 99 Waltham Road,

How much money was awarded in case 4730769?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4730769?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4730769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9706371-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4730769?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jonathan Wayne Sanders at Unit/Flat 1, 99 Waltham Road,

How much money was awarded in case 4730769?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4730769?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4730769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9706371-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 99 Waltham Road, Sydenham, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4730769 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Jonathan Wayne Sanders at Unit/Flat 1, 99 Waltham Road, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 is terminated, and possession is granted to A1 Property Managers Limited as agent for Mark and Sandra Marcijasz, at
59pm on Sunday 17 December 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, Mr Sanders in person and Ms McKay and Mr Wilson for the landlord by phone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). It alleges that Mr Sanders threatened to assault his property manager Ms McKay, an agent of the landlord. The alleged threat of assault
On 21 and 22 October 2023 Mr Sanders sent text messages to Ms McKay. The first message appears to have been in response to a previous Tribunal application to terminate his tenancy for alleged anti-social behaviour. He said: Because you tried to fuck me up with the tenancy tribunal, you can go Fuck yourself you ignorant bitch.
Later that night he messaged again. He said: Don’t you. Fucking dare to try to Fuck me over, I will f.*********eat your head brains and all!
At 11.50pm that night he messaged again. He said: Don’t fuck with me, you do at your peril
There were 3 other messages at mid night and shortly after.
Ms McKay made a police complaint and as a result Mr Sanders has been charged with using threatening language. He has been remanded on bail and he tells me he is due to appear before the District Court on 12 February 2024.
Mr Sanders does not deny sending the text messages. But he said they were sent near Halloween so phrases like ‘eat your head brains and all’ were said in that context.
Mr Sanders said he was prompted to send the messages because Ms McKay was ‘a liar and a cheat’ who had already tried to have him evicted. He said she had served three 14-day notices on him by putting letters in his letterbox.
Mr Sanders said he had lived at the premises for 15 years. He wanted to keep living there but wanted to be left alone.
Mr Wilson explained that the tenancy was previously managed by the owner, but due to Mr Sanders’ increasingly anti-social behaviour the owner felt that professional management of the tenancy was needed.
Mr Wilson said the position was now untenable. Due to Mr Sanders’ threats the landlord (A1) could not carry out its responsibilities as a landlord.

What constitutes a threat of assault?

In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd CIV-2004-409-717 the High Court considered whether a telephone message left by a tenant for his property manager that said I am ringing about James...Do you want him to live much longer?...Well, he’s not going to live much longer... constituted a threat of assault.
The Court said this: To “threaten to assault” means just what it says: it is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough. Even under the criminal law, there is no need to intend to act on the threat, or to have the capacity to act on it... Under the criminal law, what does have to be proved is the intent that the threat be taken seriously by the person to whom it is made...The intent of section 55 is to protect the classes of persons to whom it refers: the landlord, the landlord’s family or agents, and indeed other occupiers. In this context the fact of a threat has to be enough.
Ms McKay took the threat seriously. She made a complaint to the police. As a consequence, Mr Sanders has been charged.

Was there a threat of assault?

I find that there was a threat of assault against Ms McKay, especially when Mr Sanders wrote don’t fuck with me, you do at your peril. It was a threat that she perceived as real.

What else must the Tribunal consider?

But the Tribunal’s enquiry does not end there. It must consider whether an order to terminate the tenancy should be refused even though there was a threat of assault.
First, it must consider whether the breach can be remedied. It cannot. A threat once made cannot be remedied. But that does not mean that an order must be made.
Collins makes it clear that if the breach cannot be remedied (as is the case here) that issue must be set to one side and the Tribunal must also consider whether the landlord can be compensated for any loss and whether is it unlikely there will be a further breach.
There is no question of compensation. But the Tribunal needs to assess whether Mr Sanders is likely to be threatening again.
Mr Sanders made his feelings against Ms McKay clear; he dislikes her and does not trust her. He wants to be left alone. That is not a realistic option given that the owner has now instructed professional property managers. They will need to have continuing access to the premises to satisfy their RTA landlord responsibilities.
At the hearing, Mr Sanders called Ms McKay a liar and a cheat. That suggests a total lack of remorse for the threats he made. It does not give the Tribunal confidence that his behaviour will change.
I find it probable that Mr Sanders will make more threats in the future.
The landlord previously applied to terminate this tenancy for alleged anti-social behaviour by Mr Sanders. Mr Wilson said the application could not proceed because witnesses felt intimidated and would not given evidence.
Having considered all the statutory criteria in the terms required by the decision in Collins, I accept the landlord’s submission that this tenancy must end.
There was a threat of assault against Ms McKay, an agent of the landlord and the discretionary matters the Tribunal must consider are not satisfied such that the Tribunal should refuse to make the order. Result
The tenancy is terminated under section 55(1)(c) RTA. As Mr Sanders has been bailed to the tenancy address, I have delayed the possession order so he can apply for a variation of his bail conditions. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Order

The tenancy of Jonathan Wayne Sanders at Unit/Flat 1, 99 Waltham Road, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 is terminated, and possession is granted to A1 Property Managers Limited as agent for Mark and Sandra Marcijasz, at
59pm on Sunday 17 December 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, Mr Sanders in person and Ms McKay and Mr Wilson for the landlord by phone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). It alleges that Mr Sanders threatened to assault his property manager Ms McKay, an agent of the landlord. The alleged threat of assault
On 21 and 22 October 2023 Mr Sanders sent text messages to Ms McKay. The first message appears to have been in response to a previous Tribunal application to terminate his tenancy for alleged anti-social behaviour. He said: Because you tried to fuck me up with the tenancy tribunal, you can go Fuck yourself you ignorant bitch.
Later that night he messaged again. He said: Don’t you. Fucking dare to try to Fuck me over, I will f.*********eat your head brains and all!
At 11.50pm that night he messaged again. He said: Don’t fuck with me, you do at your peril
There were 3 other messages at mid night and shortly after.
Ms McKay made a police complaint and as a result Mr Sanders has been charged with using threatening language. He has been remanded on bail and he tells me he is due to appear before the District Court on 12 February 2024.
Mr Sanders does not deny sending the text messages. But he said they were sent near Halloween so phrases like ‘eat your head brains and all’ were said in that context.
Mr Sanders said he was prompted to send the messages because Ms McKay was ‘a liar and a cheat’ who had already tried to have him evicted. He said she had served three 14-day notices on him by putting letters in his letterbox.
Mr Sanders said he had lived at the premises for 15 years. He wanted to keep living there but wanted to be left alone.
Mr Wilson explained that the tenancy was previously managed by the owner, but due to Mr Sanders’ increasingly anti-social behaviour the owner felt that professional management of the tenancy was needed.
Mr Wilson said the position was now untenable. Due to Mr Sanders’ threats the landlord (A1) could not carry out its responsibilities as a landlord.

What constitutes a threat of assault?

In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd CIV-2004-409-717 the High Court considered whether a telephone message left by a tenant for his property manager that said I am ringing about James...Do you want him to live much longer?...Well, he’s not going to live much longer... constituted a threat of assault.
The Court said this: To “threaten to assault” means just what it says: it is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough. Even under the criminal law, there is no need to intend to act on the threat, or to have the capacity to act on it... Under the criminal law, what does have to be proved is the intent that the threat be taken seriously by the person to whom it is made...The intent of section 55 is to protect the classes of persons to whom it refers: the landlord, the landlord’s family or agents, and indeed other occupiers. In this context the fact of a threat has to be enough.
Ms McKay took the threat seriously. She made a complaint to the police. As a consequence, Mr Sanders has been charged.

Was there a threat of assault?

I find that there was a threat of assault against Ms McKay, especially when Mr Sanders wrote don’t fuck with me, you do at your peril. It was a threat that she perceived as real.

What else must the Tribunal consider?

But the Tribunal’s enquiry does not end there. It must consider whether an order to terminate the tenancy should be refused even though there was a threat of assault.
First, it must consider whether the breach can be remedied. It cannot. A threat once made cannot be remedied. But that does not mean that an order must be made.
Collins makes it clear that if the breach cannot be remedied (as is the case here) that issue must be set to one side and the Tribunal must also consider whether the landlord can be compensated for any loss and whether is it unlikely there will be a further breach.
There is no question of compensation. But the Tribunal needs to assess whether Mr Sanders is likely to be threatening again.
Mr Sanders made his feelings against Ms McKay clear; he dislikes her and does not trust her. He wants to be left alone. That is not a realistic option given that the owner has now instructed professional property managers. They will need to have continuing access to the premises to satisfy their RTA landlord responsibilities.
At the hearing, Mr Sanders called Ms McKay a liar and a cheat. That suggests a total lack of remorse for the threats he made. It does not give the Tribunal confidence that his behaviour will change.
I find it probable that Mr Sanders will make more threats in the future.
The landlord previously applied to terminate this tenancy for alleged anti-social behaviour by Mr Sanders. Mr Wilson said the application could not proceed because witnesses felt intimidated and would not given evidence.
Having considered all the statutory criteria in the terms required by the decision in Collins, I accept the landlord’s submission that this tenancy must end.
There was a threat of assault against Ms McKay, an agent of the landlord and the discretionary matters the Tribunal must consider are not satisfied such that the Tribunal should refuse to make the order. Result
The tenancy is terminated under section 55(1)(c) RTA. As Mr Sanders has been bailed to the tenancy address, I have delayed the possession order so he can apply for a variation of his bail conditions. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4730769 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 1, 99 Waltham Road, Sydenham, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4730769 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 1, 99 Waltham Road, Sydenham, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What constitutes a threat of assault?

Was there a threat of assault?

What else must the Tribunal consider?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What constitutes a threat of assault?

Was there a threat of assault?

What else must the Tribunal consider?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions