What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4843864 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for termination under section 55(1)(c) of the

How much money was awarded in case 4843864?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4843864?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4843864?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10221284-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4843864 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for termination under section 55(1)(c) of the

How much money was awarded in case 4843864?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4843864?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4843864?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10221284-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 5B Pantera Way, Hillpark, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4843864 — 14-day notice

Order

The landlord’s application for termination under section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is dismissed.
There tenancy is not terminated and will continue.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Two property managers attended for the landlord. The tenant attended with a support person.
The landlord, who is a social housing provider, has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has breached section 55(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord explained that the tenant is resident in a complex of 30 properties. The landlord says that on 11 March 2024 one of the other residents was assaulted by a visitor coming out of the tenant’s property.
The landlord produced CCTV footage of the incident. I was told that the incident as it relates to this tenancy was part of a larger incident involving other tenants at the complex (such incidents being the subject of another claim filed in the Tribunal).
The landlord produced CCTV footage which shows a neighbour attempting to leave the property in their car. I was told that the neighbour was leaving to escape another tenant who had threatened them.
The footage shows the tenant leaving their vehicle to remove a road cone that is in the path of their car. At that point a person that appears to be sitting on the tenant’s front step stands up and walks over to the neighbour, and two people from another tenancy begin walking towards the neighbour. The neighbour can then be seen getting back into their car, the two other people then stop, and the person who had been sitting on the tenant’s front step punches the neighbour several times through the window.
The footage was shown from three different angles and taking the footage together it is clear that the person who appears to have been sitting on the tenant’s front step has assaulted the neighbour.
The landlord also produced in evidence: a. An email from the police to the property manager advising that the neighbour has reported the matter to police and seeking CCTV footage of the incident; b. Various activity notes regarding home visits, contact with the tenant, and concerns about excessive foot traffic at the tenant’s unit; c. A text from the tenant (undated but said to be sent on 2 April 2024) regarding people present at her unit. In the text she states that the people at her unit were not staying with her but were present as she had to go out but her keys had been stolen.
The property managers explained that the tenant’s tenancy had previously been going well but that following this incident tensions were high at the complex and that they had concerns about safety. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant said that she had been homeless for two years prior to this tenancy and that she now feels positive and that she is getting her life back on track. She was understandably upset and concerned that her tenancy might be terminated.
The tenant explained that there are issues between various tenants in the complex. She said that the neighbour who was assaulted has been difficult to other tenants.
The tenant was fairly vague on details when questioned about the incident. She is not visible in the CCTV footage. She explained that had recently returned home and was in the shower when the incident occurred. She could not identify the person who had assaulted the neighbour and could not confirm whether they had come from her unit.
The tenant said that the text message produced by the landlord did not refer to the day of the incident but to a time when she was not present at the property because her keys had been stolen and she had to go out. Discussion
There are various sections of the RTA which may be relevant where there has been a physical assault - see for example section 55A (termination for anti- social behaviour), section 55AA (termination by notice for physical assault by tenant), section 56 (termination for non-payment of rent and other breaches).
In this case the landlord relies on section 55(1)(c). Section 55(1)(c) provides for termination without notice being first given to the tenant.
Section 55(1)(c) of the RTA provides that 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.’
The landlord does not allege that the tenant herself has assaulted or threated to assault the neighbour. The landlord must therefore prove that the tenant has “caused or permitted any person to assault any neighbour of the premises”.
At the hearing I queried the landlord as to whether the tenant has “caused or permitted any person to assault any neighbour”. The landlord did not have any specific submissions to make on this point and could not refer me to any specific cases but appeared to rely on section 41(1) of the RTA. Section 41(1) provides that a tenant shall be responsible for anything done by any person, who is on the premises with the tenant’s permission, if the act would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement if it had been the act of the tenant.
In my view the wording in section 55(1)(c) is specific and likely overrides the wording in section 41(1) of the RTA.
I note that the Tribunal has declined applications for termination under section 55(1)(c) where there has been insufficient evidence to prove that the tenant themselves “caused or permitted” another person to assault a neighbour. See for example Barfoot & Thompson Limited v The Tenant [2023] NZTT 4748574.
In this case there is no evidence before me proving that the tenant “caused or permitted” another person to assault the neighbour. It does not appear that the tenant was even present at the time.
However even if I am wrong about my interpretation, and section 41(1) applies to the interpretation of section 55(1)(c), I do not consider that the landlord has proved that the person responsible for the assault was on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
There was no evidence from the neighbour, or from other tenants or any other witness as to who this person was. The CCTV footage shows this person sitting on the tenant’s front step. If the person had been inside the tenant’s unit then I may have been able to infer that the person was there with the tenant’s permission, but that was not the case.
I have considered the text message provided in evidence by the landlord but do not find that this proves that the person who assaulted the neighbour was one of the people in the tenant’s unit.
In the circumstances the landlord’s claim for termination must be dismissed. Final comments
There has been an assault at this complex and that is a matter that the Tribunal takes very seriously. The safety of all tenants and their visitors is paramount, as discussed at the hearing.
While I have not found the landlord’s claim proven on the balance of probabilities I do have concerns that tensions are running high.
I hope that the landlord and tenant will be able to work together to ensure the continued success of this tenant’s tenancy and the safety of all tenants at the complex. As far as this tenancy is concerned, this may involve working through some of the other issues which were raised at the hearing (but that I was not required to consider or determine) including the landlord’s concerns about high foot traffic at the tenant’s unit and difficulties that they have had getting hold of her.
At the hearing the tenant referred to a specific property manager that she was able to work well with and so it might be helpful if that person could discuss matters with the tenant as a first step. Name suppression
As the landlord has not proven their claim I have exercised my discretion to suppress the tenant’s name (see section 95A RTA).

Order

The landlord’s application for termination under section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is dismissed.
There tenancy is not terminated and will continue.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Two property managers attended for the landlord. The tenant attended with a support person.
The landlord, who is a social housing provider, has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has breached section 55(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord explained that the tenant is resident in a complex of 30 properties. The landlord says that on 11 March 2024 one of the other residents was assaulted by a visitor coming out of the tenant’s property.
The landlord produced CCTV footage of the incident. I was told that the incident as it relates to this tenancy was part of a larger incident involving other tenants at the complex (such incidents being the subject of another claim filed in the Tribunal).
The landlord produced CCTV footage which shows a neighbour attempting to leave the property in their car. I was told that the neighbour was leaving to escape another tenant who had threatened them.
The footage shows the tenant leaving their vehicle to remove a road cone that is in the path of their car. At that point a person that appears to be sitting on the tenant’s front step stands up and walks over to the neighbour, and two people from another tenancy begin walking towards the neighbour. The neighbour can then be seen getting back into their car, the two other people then stop, and the person who had been sitting on the tenant’s front step punches the neighbour several times through the window.
The footage was shown from three different angles and taking the footage together it is clear that the person who appears to have been sitting on the tenant’s front step has assaulted the neighbour.
The landlord also produced in evidence: a. An email from the police to the property manager advising that the neighbour has reported the matter to police and seeking CCTV footage of the incident; b. Various activity notes regarding home visits, contact with the tenant, and concerns about excessive foot traffic at the tenant’s unit; c. A text from the tenant (undated but said to be sent on 2 April 2024) regarding people present at her unit. In the text she states that the people at her unit were not staying with her but were present as she had to go out but her keys had been stolen.
The property managers explained that the tenant’s tenancy had previously been going well but that following this incident tensions were high at the complex and that they had concerns about safety. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant said that she had been homeless for two years prior to this tenancy and that she now feels positive and that she is getting her life back on track. She was understandably upset and concerned that her tenancy might be terminated.
The tenant explained that there are issues between various tenants in the complex. She said that the neighbour who was assaulted has been difficult to other tenants.
The tenant was fairly vague on details when questioned about the incident. She is not visible in the CCTV footage. She explained that had recently returned home and was in the shower when the incident occurred. She could not identify the person who had assaulted the neighbour and could not confirm whether they had come from her unit.
The tenant said that the text message produced by the landlord did not refer to the day of the incident but to a time when she was not present at the property because her keys had been stolen and she had to go out. Discussion
There are various sections of the RTA which may be relevant where there has been a physical assault - see for example section 55A (termination for anti- social behaviour), section 55AA (termination by notice for physical assault by tenant), section 56 (termination for non-payment of rent and other breaches).
In this case the landlord relies on section 55(1)(c). Section 55(1)(c) provides for termination without notice being first given to the tenant.
Section 55(1)(c) of the RTA provides that 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.’
The landlord does not allege that the tenant herself has assaulted or threated to assault the neighbour. The landlord must therefore prove that the tenant has “caused or permitted any person to assault any neighbour of the premises”.
At the hearing I queried the landlord as to whether the tenant has “caused or permitted any person to assault any neighbour”. The landlord did not have any specific submissions to make on this point and could not refer me to any specific cases but appeared to rely on section 41(1) of the RTA. Section 41(1) provides that a tenant shall be responsible for anything done by any person, who is on the premises with the tenant’s permission, if the act would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement if it had been the act of the tenant.
In my view the wording in section 55(1)(c) is specific and likely overrides the wording in section 41(1) of the RTA.
I note that the Tribunal has declined applications for termination under section 55(1)(c) where there has been insufficient evidence to prove that the tenant themselves “caused or permitted” another person to assault a neighbour. See for example Barfoot & Thompson Limited v The Tenant [2023] NZTT 4748574.
In this case there is no evidence before me proving that the tenant “caused or permitted” another person to assault the neighbour. It does not appear that the tenant was even present at the time.
However even if I am wrong about my interpretation, and section 41(1) applies to the interpretation of section 55(1)(c), I do not consider that the landlord has proved that the person responsible for the assault was on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
There was no evidence from the neighbour, or from other tenants or any other witness as to who this person was. The CCTV footage shows this person sitting on the tenant’s front step. If the person had been inside the tenant’s unit then I may have been able to infer that the person was there with the tenant’s permission, but that was not the case.
I have considered the text message provided in evidence by the landlord but do not find that this proves that the person who assaulted the neighbour was one of the people in the tenant’s unit.
In the circumstances the landlord’s claim for termination must be dismissed. Final comments
There has been an assault at this complex and that is a matter that the Tribunal takes very seriously. The safety of all tenants and their visitors is paramount, as discussed at the hearing.
While I have not found the landlord’s claim proven on the balance of probabilities I do have concerns that tensions are running high.
I hope that the landlord and tenant will be able to work together to ensure the continued success of this tenant’s tenancy and the safety of all tenants at the complex. As far as this tenancy is concerned, this may involve working through some of the other issues which were raised at the hearing (but that I was not required to consider or determine) including the landlord’s concerns about high foot traffic at the tenant’s unit and difficulties that they have had getting hold of her.
At the hearing the tenant referred to a specific property manager that she was able to work well with and so it might be helpful if that person could discuss matters with the tenant as a first step. Name suppression
As the landlord has not proven their claim I have exercised my discretion to suppress the tenant’s name (see section 95A RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4843864 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 6, 5B Pantera Way, Hillpark, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4843864 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 6, 5B Pantera Way, Hillpark, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions