What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4753352 about?

This case concerned a 14-day notice dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4753352?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4753352?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4753352?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9766562-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4753352 about?

This case concerned a 14-day notice dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4753352?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4753352?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4753352?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9766562-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 78 Rosebank Road, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4753352 — 14-day notice

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended by teleconference due to illness.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under s.55(1)(c)(v) RTA which provides that: “Subject to subsection (2), on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that—the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, .....any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.”
The premises form part of a 6 unit block. There are 4 units upstairs and 2 downstairs, this unit and unit 6. The landlord is landlord for both units.
The landlord’s evidence is that a report of concern was received from the tenant at unit 6, Mr S, that the tenant had threated him with a knife.
The incident was reported to the police and the police have charged the tenant in relation to the incident. The tenant is contesting the charges and the next Court call is later this month.
The landlord has made an Official Information Act request in respect of the case but is only able to put in evidence the police response that at this stage the matter is proceeding, and no further information can be made available.
A copy of the Order was not put in evidence, but I understand the tenant has been bailed back to the tenancy address on condition that he not threaten or interfere with Mr S.
The witness statement given by Mr S to the police was put in evidence and Mr S appeared by phone to confirm the content of the statement. Mr S alleges that after having lived in unit 6 for about 2 weeks, he was in the unit with a friend. There was banging on the wall between his unit and unit 5 then at the door of his unit. He says the tenant was there with a knife swearing and threatening to harm him. He says he and his friend tried to calm the tenant and were able to make their way past him while the tenant continued to swear at and threaten him. The police were then called.
Mr S says that he had not met the tenant prior to that time but knows it was him from having seen him about the premises.
Mr S confirms that there have been no such incidents of concern since then but, especially because the incident happened out of the blue without any cause or provocation on his part, he is feels fearful and on edge living in his home next door to the tenant.
The landlord also gave evidence of a cleaner, who was cleaning unit 6 before Ms S moved in, having reported feeling anxious and afraid when someone came to the door of unit 6 while she was cleaning, asking if she was the new tenant, making strange and disturbing noises and continuing to try to open the door.
For his part, the tenant says that he was aware unit 6 was vacant but was not aware a cleaner was coming. When he heard someone there, he did go to check and asked if the person there was the new tenant. He denies behaving in any threatening or intimidating way toward the cleaner or to have continued trying to open the door. He says his young children can sometimes be a bit cheeky and might have tried the handle.
As regards the complaint by Mr S he says he simply has no idea about the events described and absolutely denies having behaved in the way described by Mr S. Findings
This application requires the Tribunal to decide whether it is proved that the tenant assaulted Mr S or threatened to do so. If that is proved, then the Tribunal is required by s.55(1) to make an Order terminating the tenancy. The criteria in subsection (2) do not apply here.
It is for the landlord as applicant to provide evidence to prove the claim. The standard of proof the Tribunal is required to apply is the civil, balance of probabilities standard, rather than requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt as applies in the criminal jurisdiction. So, I have to be satisfied that it is more likely than not that an assault or threat to assault occurred.
The claim is serious and alleges criminal conduct. The consequence of upholding the claim is loss of the tenant’s home. Accordingly, while the standard of proof is less than required in respect of a criminal prosecution, there needs to be a very solid evidential foundation for me to find the claim proved.
It is tempting to simply adjourn this application until the criminal prosecution against the tenant has been heard. However, the Tribunal has a responsibility to determine this claim on the basis of the evidence presented to it.
That evidence comprises Mr S’s allegations about the threatened assault. His oral evidence confirms the information given to the police in his witness statement. Against that, is direct evidence from the tenant that he did not engage in any of the conduct alleged.
To prefer one person’s evidence over the other, I would really require some evidence that corroborates one of those versions of events. The landlord’s evidence about the incident with the cleaner does not amount to corroboration. When asked, the tenant immediately acknowledged having knocked on the door of unit 6 while she was cleaning it and asking if she was the new tenant. The tenant’s evidence about that can be reconciled with the cleaner’s account and if accepted would not constitute inappropriate behaviour.
I take into account that the police have elected to lay charges, but of course those charges are not proven and the tenant has been bailed back to the tenancy address, next to Mr S.
Weighing that evidence, I do not find that it proves that the tenant assaulted Mr S, or threated to do so.
I must therefore dismiss the application.
The landlord is free of course to file a further application if any such incidents are alleged in future.
Given my dismissal of the application it is appropriate that the tenant’s identifying details be suppressed.
No order is made in respect of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended by teleconference due to illness.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under s.55(1)(c)(v) RTA which provides that: “Subject to subsection (2), on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that—the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, .....any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.”
The premises form part of a 6 unit block. There are 4 units upstairs and 2 downstairs, this unit and unit 6. The landlord is landlord for both units.
The landlord’s evidence is that a report of concern was received from the tenant at unit 6, Mr S, that the tenant had threated him with a knife.
The incident was reported to the police and the police have charged the tenant in relation to the incident. The tenant is contesting the charges and the next Court call is later this month.
The landlord has made an Official Information Act request in respect of the case but is only able to put in evidence the police response that at this stage the matter is proceeding, and no further information can be made available.
A copy of the Order was not put in evidence, but I understand the tenant has been bailed back to the tenancy address on condition that he not threaten or interfere with Mr S.
The witness statement given by Mr S to the police was put in evidence and Mr S appeared by phone to confirm the content of the statement. Mr S alleges that after having lived in unit 6 for about 2 weeks, he was in the unit with a friend. There was banging on the wall between his unit and unit 5 then at the door of his unit. He says the tenant was there with a knife swearing and threatening to harm him. He says he and his friend tried to calm the tenant and were able to make their way past him while the tenant continued to swear at and threaten him. The police were then called.
Mr S says that he had not met the tenant prior to that time but knows it was him from having seen him about the premises.
Mr S confirms that there have been no such incidents of concern since then but, especially because the incident happened out of the blue without any cause or provocation on his part, he is feels fearful and on edge living in his home next door to the tenant.
The landlord also gave evidence of a cleaner, who was cleaning unit 6 before Ms S moved in, having reported feeling anxious and afraid when someone came to the door of unit 6 while she was cleaning, asking if she was the new tenant, making strange and disturbing noises and continuing to try to open the door.
For his part, the tenant says that he was aware unit 6 was vacant but was not aware a cleaner was coming. When he heard someone there, he did go to check and asked if the person there was the new tenant. He denies behaving in any threatening or intimidating way toward the cleaner or to have continued trying to open the door. He says his young children can sometimes be a bit cheeky and might have tried the handle.
As regards the complaint by Mr S he says he simply has no idea about the events described and absolutely denies having behaved in the way described by Mr S. Findings
This application requires the Tribunal to decide whether it is proved that the tenant assaulted Mr S or threatened to do so. If that is proved, then the Tribunal is required by s.55(1) to make an Order terminating the tenancy. The criteria in subsection (2) do not apply here.
It is for the landlord as applicant to provide evidence to prove the claim. The standard of proof the Tribunal is required to apply is the civil, balance of probabilities standard, rather than requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt as applies in the criminal jurisdiction. So, I have to be satisfied that it is more likely than not that an assault or threat to assault occurred.
The claim is serious and alleges criminal conduct. The consequence of upholding the claim is loss of the tenant’s home. Accordingly, while the standard of proof is less than required in respect of a criminal prosecution, there needs to be a very solid evidential foundation for me to find the claim proved.
It is tempting to simply adjourn this application until the criminal prosecution against the tenant has been heard. However, the Tribunal has a responsibility to determine this claim on the basis of the evidence presented to it.
That evidence comprises Mr S’s allegations about the threatened assault. His oral evidence confirms the information given to the police in his witness statement. Against that, is direct evidence from the tenant that he did not engage in any of the conduct alleged.
To prefer one person’s evidence over the other, I would really require some evidence that corroborates one of those versions of events. The landlord’s evidence about the incident with the cleaner does not amount to corroboration. When asked, the tenant immediately acknowledged having knocked on the door of unit 6 while she was cleaning it and asking if she was the new tenant. The tenant’s evidence about that can be reconciled with the cleaner’s account and if accepted would not constitute inappropriate behaviour.
I take into account that the police have elected to lay charges, but of course those charges are not proven and the tenant has been bailed back to the tenancy address, next to Mr S.
Weighing that evidence, I do not find that it proves that the tenant assaulted Mr S, or threated to do so.
I must therefore dismiss the application.
The landlord is free of course to file a further application if any such incidents are alleged in future.
Given my dismissal of the application it is appropriate that the tenant’s identifying details be suppressed.
No order is made in respect of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4753352 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 5, 78 Rosebank Road, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4753352 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 5, 78 Rosebank Road, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Claims & awards

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions