What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4815477 about?

The tribunal order states: The claim is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4815477?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4815477?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4815477?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10253401-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4815477 about?

The tribunal order states: The claim is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4815477?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4815477?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4815477?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10253401-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4815477 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The claim is dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. [The landlord’s representative/s] said the tenant was aware of the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 of 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 said the tenant has breached their obligations by slashing the car tyre of another tenant and, in doing so, has beached the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of another of their tenants. The landlord said this is a breach incapable of remedy.
The landlord explained that the premises involve 12 flats which comprise a complex of community housing for people over 55 years old. The landlord said that it is believed that the tenant asked the other tenant involved for some clothes, which were provided, only a couple of days before the incident. On 3 February 2024, the landlord said the tenant went to the other tenant’s door, threw the clothes back at him and was shouting. The landlord said later a witness, who was visiting the complex, saw the tenant slashing a car tyre which she believed belonged to the other tenant in question. No direct witness statement from this witness was provided, though the landlord provided a summary of this witness’ evidence. The landlord also provided a copy of a police report indicating the tenant has been charged with wilful damage. The landlord said they are not aware whether this charge has been dealt with yet by the Court.
The landlord maintained the tenant was involved in two other more minor breaches – throwing a brick at a wall, around the same time as the car tyre incident, and putting a deadbolt on the outside of his door thus creating a fire hazard, also more recently. They said they issued 14-day notices to the tenant about these breaches and that the tenant rectified both matters by repairing the wall and removing the deadbolt.
The tenant has lived at the property since 2009. The landlord said they are not aware of any other alleged breaches by or incidents involving the tenant, prior to the car tyre incident in February 2024 and the other more minor recent breaches that were remedied. The landlord believed the tenant may have mental health issues currently and said they have had some brief contact with a support person for the tenant, who denied the tenant slashed the car tyre of the other tenant. They said they find it very difficult to reach the tenant, as he has become reclusive since the incident in February 2024. However, they said the tenant is responsive to tradespeople attending his unit for any repairs. There have been no further incidents reported involving the tenant, since those outlined above. The landlord said they are concerned about the tenant’s unpredictability though, and the anxiety of the other tenants in the complex about this tenant’s behaviour.
The breach is not capable of remedy because any such incident involving damage to another tenant’s car tyre and its effects, cannot be undone.
I am not satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, based on the following evidence. The tenant has lived at the complex for about 15 years, with only 3 recent incidents over the whole period of his tenancy, as reported, the two minor of which were remedied by the tenant in a timely manner, according to the landlord. Also, there was little information provided as to any background of why the car tyre damage incident that is alleged occurred, of any history between the two tenants involved, and what the tenant’s version is of what happened, even reported by others. There was no evidence provided from the other tenant involved, even by way of a witness statement. The only evidence from the witness said to have seen the tenant slash the tyre was provided by way of a summary from the landlord, rather than a signed witness statement of her own, which I find is not the best evidence as regards key evidence. From the landlord’s evidence, it appears that the tenant has not been involved in further incidents since the alleged car tyre incident in February 2024. Further, the wilful damage charge does not appear to have been dealt with by the Court yet. Given this, and the tenant’s lengthy tenancy without incident prior to more recent events, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Therefore, the claim is dismissed.
Were there to be any future incidents of a serious nature involving the tenant, such a claim could potentially have a different outcome. Suppression
The landlord requested suppression. The tenant did not attend the hearing and so did not request suppression.
Section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord manages community housing, which is much in demand in the [Region] currently. The landlord has attempted to take action on behalf of its other tenants in a responsible manner in the circumstances. The claim has been dismissed so the tenant should not be prejudiced by having his name published. Given the circumstances, I find that the interests of both parties outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s and the tenant’s names and any identifying details, as well as the tenancy address, are not to be published.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. [The landlord’s representative/s] said the tenant was aware of the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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 of 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 said the tenant has breached their obligations by slashing the car tyre of another tenant and, in doing so, has beached the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of another of their tenants. The landlord said this is a breach incapable of remedy.

The landlord explained that the premises involve 12 flats which comprise a complex of community housing for people over 55 years old. The landlord said that it is believed that the tenant asked the other tenant involved for some clothes, which were provided, only a couple of days before the incident. On 3 February 2024, the landlord said the tenant went to the other tenant’s door, threw the clothes back at him and was shouting. The landlord said later a witness, who was visiting the complex, saw the tenant slashing a car tyre which she believed belonged to the other tenant in question. No direct witness statement from this witness was provided, though the landlord provided a summary of this witness’ evidence. The landlord also provided a copy of a police report indicating the tenant has been charged with wilful damage. The landlord said they are not aware whether this charge has been dealt with yet by the Court.

The landlord maintained the tenant was involved in two other more minor breaches – throwing a brick at a wall, around the same time as the car tyre incident, and putting a deadbolt on the outside of his door thus creating a fire hazard, also more recently. They said they issued 14-day notices to the tenant about these breaches and that the tenant rectified both matters by repairing the wall and removing the deadbolt.

The tenant has lived at the property since 2009. The landlord said they are not aware of any other alleged breaches by or incidents involving the tenant, prior to the car tyre incident in February 2024 and the other more minor recent breaches that were remedied. The landlord believed the tenant may have mental health issues currently and said they have had some brief contact with a support person for the tenant, who denied the tenant slashed the car tyre of the other tenant. They said they find it very difficult to reach the tenant, as he has become reclusive since the incident in February 2024. However, they said the tenant is responsive to tradespeople attending his unit for any repairs. There have been no further incidents reported involving the tenant, since those outlined above. The landlord said they are concerned about the tenant’s unpredictability though, and the anxiety of the other tenants in the complex about this tenant’s behaviour.

The breach is not capable of remedy because any such incident involving damage to another tenant’s car tyre and its effects, cannot be undone.

I am not satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, based on the following evidence. The tenant has lived at the complex for about 15 years, with only 3 recent incidents over the whole period of his tenancy, as reported, the two minor of which were remedied by the tenant in a timely manner, according to the landlord. Also, there was little information provided as to any background of why the car tyre damage incident that is alleged occurred, of any history between the two tenants involved, and what the tenant’s version is of what happened, even reported by others. There was no evidence provided from the other tenant involved, even by way of a witness statement. The only evidence from the witness said to have seen the tenant slash the tyre was provided by way of a summary from the landlord, rather than a signed witness statement of her own, which I find is not the best evidence as regards key evidence. From the landlord’s evidence, it appears that the tenant has not been involved in further incidents since the alleged car tyre incident in February 2024. Further, the wilful damage charge does not appear to have been dealt with by the Court yet. Given this, and the tenant’s lengthy tenancy without incident prior to more recent events, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Therefore, the claim is dismissed.

Were there to be any future incidents of a serious nature involving the tenant, such a claim could potentially have a different outcome. Suppression

The landlord requested suppression. The tenant did not attend the hearing and so did not request suppression.

Section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The landlord manages community housing, which is much in demand in the [Region] currently. The landlord has attempted to take action on behalf of its other tenants in a responsible manner in the circumstances. The claim has been dismissed so the tenant should not be prejudiced by having his name published. Given the circumstances, I find that the interests of both parties outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s and the tenant’s names and any identifying details, as well as the tenancy address, are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4815477 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4815477 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions