What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4831498?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Lyree Priestley at 61 Fletcher Place, Upper Riccarton,

How much money was awarded in case 4831498?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4831498?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4831498?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10286004-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4831498?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Lyree Priestley at 61 Fletcher Place, Upper Riccarton,

How much money was awarded in case 4831498?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4831498?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4831498?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10286004-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

61 Fletcher Place, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4831498 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Lyree Priestley at 61 Fletcher Place, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Friday 17 May 2024.
Lyree Priestley must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust the filing fee of $20.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Woodbury and Mr Olds represented the landlord. The tenant, Ms Priestley, was assisted by Ms Shekhar and Ms Watson from Housing First Otautahi.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The relevant law is found in section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). That section provides that the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant caused or permitted any person to assault, or threatened to assault, any neighbour of the premises.
The landlord claims that on 25 January 2024, Ms Priestley assaulted a neighbour, Ms Clark who is the tenant of another unit in the complex, by punching her with a closed fist on her face/cheek area. The landlord’s evidence was supported by the evidence of the landlord’s witnesses, Ms Clark and Mr Sudlow. Mr Sudlow is another tenant of the complex.
There was considerable dispute regarding what actually happened during the altercation. Ms Priestley denies punching Ms Clark but accepts that she slapped her across her face. She claims that Ms Clark also slapped her across her face and the slaps occurred simultaneously. She said that it was the result of an altercation between her and Ms Clark and she suggested that they were equally responsible for the incident. She said that Ms Clark was having trouble with her washing machine and her partner, Mr Rendall, went to Ms Clark’s unit to fix the machine for her. She said that this occurred around 10.30am. Ms Priestley said that she then took Ms Clark’s washing back to her unit and washed, dried, and folded the washing for her. She said that the altercation occurred after she asked Ms Clark to collect the completed washing and Ms Clark refused. Ms Priestley said that they were both yelling at each on the road outside their respective units. She said that Ms Clark was walking back to her unit and was at her doorstep when she called Ms Priestley her a “fat slut”. Ms Priestley said that she found this particularly offensive so she ran/walked very fast to Ms Clark’s unit and approached her at her door step. She said that she slapped Ms Clark across the face and Ms Clark slapped her across the face at the same time. She said that this occurred at about 2.30pm. Her witness, Mr Rendall, supported her evidence (although he claims Ms Clark called Ms Priestley a “skanky hoe/whore”).
On the other hand, Ms Clark said that Ms Priestley had approached her the night before knocking on the door of her unit and accused her of stealing property from her. Ms Clark denied taking any property belonging to Ms Priestley and she said she told Ms Priestley to go away. She said that the next morning at about 8am, when she was just outside the door of her unit, Ms Priestley came up to her and punched her twice in the face with a closed fist. She said she did not provoke Ms Priestley, and she did not fight back. She said that she then went inside her unit and called the Police and reported the incident. She denied that Ms Priestley had done washing for her or that Ms Priestley had helped her with her washing machine. Ms Clark has been staying with her parents since the incident and she said that she is too frightened to return to her unit because of Ms Priestley.
Mr Sudlow said that he heard a woman yelling so he went outside his unit to see what the commotion was. He said that he saw Ms Priestley yelling at Ms Clark and calling her names. He said that she “was out of control” and “aggressive”. He said that without warning she hit Ms Clark’s face with a closed fist. He said that he only saw her hit Ms Clark once. He said that Ms Clark did not try to defend herself. He said Ms Clark was in shock and he stayed with her while she called the Police. He said that he was unsure of the time the incident occurred but it was during the morning, possibly mid-morning.
I prefer the evidence of Ms Clark and Mr Sudlow over that of Ms Priestley and Mr Rendall. I place particular weight on Mr Sudlow’s evidence. Mr Sudlow was clear and consistent with his evidence and he said that he had a clear view of the incident. Mr Sudlow is also a more objective witness than Mr Rendall who is Ms Priestley’s partner and has good reason to want her to keep her tenancy given that he lives there with her.
However, most compelling is the Police Report which records that Ms Priestley phoned to report the incident at 9.04am on 25 January. Thus, it could not have occurred in the afternoon as claimed by Ms Priestley and Mr Rendall and could not have been the result of an argument over the collection of washing that was said to have been completed sometime after 10.30am. This casts considerable doubt on the truthfulness of the evidence of both Ms Priestley and Mr Rendall. I therefore find that it is more likely than not that Ms Priestley assaulted Ms Clark by punching her in the face and Ms Clark did not assault or slap Ms Priestley.
I am therefore satisfied that the criteria for termination of the tenancy in section 55(1)(c) of the Act has been established. The only discretion I have to not terminate the tenancy when a tenant assaults a neighbour is found in section 55(2) of the Act. That section provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied if it is the type of breach that can be remedied, the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind.
After carefully balancing all the evidence I find that this is not an appropriate case to exercise my discretion in Ms Priestley’s favour. Of particular concern is Ms Priestley’s attempts to minimise her behaviour by placing blame on Ms Clark for it. Without a recognition and acknowledgment of her behaviour or a recognition that it is not acceptable I cannot be satisfied that she is unlikely to commit a further breach of the same kind. Tribunal application fee
The landlord has been successful in its claim and is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Order

The tenancy of Lyree Priestley at 61 Fletcher Place, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Friday 17 May 2024.
Lyree Priestley must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust the filing fee of $20.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Woodbury and Mr Olds represented the landlord. The tenant, Ms Priestley, was assisted by Ms Shekhar and Ms Watson from Housing First Otautahi.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The relevant law is found in section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). That section provides that the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant caused or permitted any person to assault, or threatened to assault, any neighbour of the premises.
The landlord claims that on 25 January 2024, Ms Priestley assaulted a neighbour, Ms Clark who is the tenant of another unit in the complex, by punching her with a closed fist on her face/cheek area. The landlord’s evidence was supported by the evidence of the landlord’s witnesses, Ms Clark and Mr Sudlow. Mr Sudlow is another tenant of the complex.
There was considerable dispute regarding what actually happened during the altercation. Ms Priestley denies punching Ms Clark but accepts that she slapped her across her face. She claims that Ms Clark also slapped her across her face and the slaps occurred simultaneously. She said that it was the result of an altercation between her and Ms Clark and she suggested that they were equally responsible for the incident. She said that Ms Clark was having trouble with her washing machine and her partner, Mr Rendall, went to Ms Clark’s unit to fix the machine for her. She said that this occurred around 10.30am. Ms Priestley said that she then took Ms Clark’s washing back to her unit and washed, dried, and folded the washing for her. She said that the altercation occurred after she asked Ms Clark to collect the completed washing and Ms Clark refused. Ms Priestley said that they were both yelling at each on the road outside their respective units. She said that Ms Clark was walking back to her unit and was at her doorstep when she called Ms Priestley her a “fat slut”. Ms Priestley said that she found this particularly offensive so she ran/walked very fast to Ms Clark’s unit and approached her at her door step. She said that she slapped Ms Clark across the face and Ms Clark slapped her across the face at the same time. She said that this occurred at about 2.30pm. Her witness, Mr Rendall, supported her evidence (although he claims Ms Clark called Ms Priestley a “skanky hoe/whore”).
On the other hand, Ms Clark said that Ms Priestley had approached her the night before knocking on the door of her unit and accused her of stealing property from her. Ms Clark denied taking any property belonging to Ms Priestley and she said she told Ms Priestley to go away. She said that the next morning at about 8am, when she was just outside the door of her unit, Ms Priestley came up to her and punched her twice in the face with a closed fist. She said she did not provoke Ms Priestley, and she did not fight back. She said that she then went inside her unit and called the Police and reported the incident. She denied that Ms Priestley had done washing for her or that Ms Priestley had helped her with her washing machine. Ms Clark has been staying with her parents since the incident and she said that she is too frightened to return to her unit because of Ms Priestley.
Mr Sudlow said that he heard a woman yelling so he went outside his unit to see what the commotion was. He said that he saw Ms Priestley yelling at Ms Clark and calling her names. He said that she “was out of control” and “aggressive”. He said that without warning she hit Ms Clark’s face with a closed fist. He said that he only saw her hit Ms Clark once. He said that Ms Clark did not try to defend herself. He said Ms Clark was in shock and he stayed with her while she called the Police. He said that he was unsure of the time the incident occurred but it was during the morning, possibly mid-morning.
I prefer the evidence of Ms Clark and Mr Sudlow over that of Ms Priestley and Mr Rendall. I place particular weight on Mr Sudlow’s evidence. Mr Sudlow was clear and consistent with his evidence and he said that he had a clear view of the incident. Mr Sudlow is also a more objective witness than Mr Rendall who is Ms Priestley’s partner and has good reason to want her to keep her tenancy given that he lives there with her.
However, most compelling is the Police Report which records that Ms Priestley phoned to report the incident at 9.04am on 25 January. Thus, it could not have occurred in the afternoon as claimed by Ms Priestley and Mr Rendall and could not have been the result of an argument over the collection of washing that was said to have been completed sometime after 10.30am. This casts considerable doubt on the truthfulness of the evidence of both Ms Priestley and Mr Rendall. I therefore find that it is more likely than not that Ms Priestley assaulted Ms Clark by punching her in the face and Ms Clark did not assault or slap Ms Priestley.
I am therefore satisfied that the criteria for termination of the tenancy in section 55(1)(c) of the Act has been established. The only discretion I have to not terminate the tenancy when a tenant assaults a neighbour is found in section 55(2) of the Act. That section provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied if it is the type of breach that can be remedied, the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind.
After carefully balancing all the evidence I find that this is not an appropriate case to exercise my discretion in Ms Priestley’s favour. Of particular concern is Ms Priestley’s attempts to minimise her behaviour by placing blame on Ms Clark for it. Without a recognition and acknowledgment of her behaviour or a recognition that it is not acceptable I cannot be satisfied that she is unlikely to commit a further breach of the same kind. Tribunal application fee
The landlord has been successful in its claim and is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4831498 — 14-day notice at 61 Fletcher Place, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4831498 — 14-day notice at 61 Fletcher Place, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions