What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4850960 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4850960?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4850960?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4850960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10260454-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4850960 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4850960?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4850960?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4850960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10260454-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4850960 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The Landlord/s] represented the landlord. [The Tenant/s] appeared with his [Key Worker].
[Organisation] and [the Landlord/s] work in partnership to house some of our community’s most vulnerable members.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of [the tenant/’s] obligations. They say that he has threatened his neighbour with a spade and engaged in anti-social behaviour on other occasions.

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 (RTA).
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so. The landlord has not done this.
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 to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone. This is what the landlord alleges here.
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 has issued [the tenant/s] with an anti-social notice dated 22 March for interfering with the peace and quiet enjoyment of his neighbours. Anti-social behaviour for the purposes of the RTA means harassment or any other significant act that causes alarm, distress or nuisance. 1
The landlord is not entitled to make an application for termination for anti-social behaviour pursuant to section 55A of the RTA because they have not issued three such notices.
The landlord therefore applies for termination pursuant to section 55(1)(c) of the RTA saying that [the tenant/s] has threatened to assault the neighbour and pursuant to section 56(1)(c) of the RTA saying that such a breach cannot be remedied. They say he threatened the neighbour and her uber driver with a spade and is a risk to her. The neighbour is a single mother with two young children and the houses are in very close proximity.
They say they had similar issues of [the tenant/s] displaying disruptive behaviour at the previous tenancy he had with them, and he was moved to this property for those reasons. They accept there have never been any instances of him threatening or assaulting another neighbour.
[The tenant/s] denies that he made the alleged threat. He agrees he did have his spade at the time as he was gardening, however he says the neighbour started to film him and he got upset and agrees he began swearing. He says he never waved the spade above his head and just went back into the house when he began to get upset. He says the neighbour has got it in for him and does not like him. He is clear that he does not like violence, especially around children.
[The tenant/s] says he works closely with his key worker at [Organisation] and has been keeping a quiet, low profile as advised by them. [Key Worker] says that he always tells her when there is an incident and confirms he appears 1 Section 55A(7) of the RTA committed to keeping to himself. She does not believe he poses a threat to his neighbours.
A letter from [the tenant/’s] nurse at Te Whatu Ora was provided. It notes that he is under the care of the Community Mental Health Team and has a diagnosis of psychosis complicated by a severe trauma history. She accepts he has been disruptive towards his neighbours but says he is receiving treatment. She says that he has been assessed by her and his doctors as low risk to others and wrote to support him to maintain his accommodation. She says they will work to support him throughout the process.
The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, which is the balance of probabilities. Put another way, they need to prove to the Tribunal that it is more likely than not that [the tenant/s] did threaten his neighbour with a spade.
They have provided an email from the neighbour saying that [the tenant/s] did run down the driveway “waving a spade and yelling at the driver to “F** off”. He also told her to “F**k off you bitch” and waved the spade. He went inside when she called the Police who declined to intervene. She says she fears for herself and her kids as his behaviour is “unpredictable and intimidating”.
They also provided an email from [Organisation] saying they have been told that he “acts out” at night-time which appears to be a trigger for him, by yelling and screaming and banging on the fence.
Having assessed the evidence provided to me, I am not satisfied that it has been proven to the relevant evidential standard that [the tenant/s] did threaten his neighbour or her uber driver. I find it more likely than not that there was a discussion of some sort which involved swearing, but I do not find it proven that there was a specific threat in the use of the spade. This is because I find [the tenant/’s] oral evidence, along with his doctor’s letter and support worker’s oral evidence more compelling than the email from the neighbour. Both organisations are aware of what has been occurring but still support him to reside in this property.
Accordingly, the application pursuant to section 55 RTA must be dismissed.
Turning to section 56 of the RTA, I find that there has been anti-social behaviour on the part of [the tenant/s] in the form of yelling and swearing. I must therefore assess whether this breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
I do not find it is. [The tenant/s] is heavily supported by [Organisation] and his mental health team. I accept his evidence that he meets with the latter weekly and has a high level of engagement with them both. I am satisfied then that they are currently able to support him to cease engaging in behaviour that is disruptive and upsetting for his neighbours. There is also no evidence of past threatening behaviour.
I therefore dismiss the application, however I do note that should such incidents occur again and the landlord makes a further application, it is likely that [the tenant/s] will receive a different approach from the Tribunal. To put it another way, this is a last opportunity to [the tenant/s] to retain his tenancy.
I direct pursuant to section 95A of the RTA that both parties’ details be suppressed. This is as situation of housing for vulnerable people and [the tenant/s] has mental health issues that do not need to be aggravated by the publication of his details.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The Landlord/s] represented the landlord. [The Tenant/s] appeared with his [Key Worker].
[Organisation] and [the Landlord/s] work in partnership to house some of our community’s most vulnerable members.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of [the tenant/’s] obligations. They say that he has threatened his neighbour with a spade and engaged in anti-social behaviour on other occasions.

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 (RTA).
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so. The landlord has not done this.
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 to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone. This is what the landlord alleges here.
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 has issued [the tenant/s] with an anti-social notice dated 22 March for interfering with the peace and quiet enjoyment of his neighbours. Anti-social behaviour for the purposes of the RTA means harassment or any other significant act that causes alarm, distress or nuisance. 1
The landlord is not entitled to make an application for termination for anti-social behaviour pursuant to section 55A of the RTA because they have not issued three such notices.
The landlord therefore applies for termination pursuant to section 55(1)(c) of the RTA saying that [the tenant/s] has threatened to assault the neighbour and pursuant to section 56(1)(c) of the RTA saying that such a breach cannot be remedied. They say he threatened the neighbour and her uber driver with a spade and is a risk to her. The neighbour is a single mother with two young children and the houses are in very close proximity.
They say they had similar issues of [the tenant/s] displaying disruptive behaviour at the previous tenancy he had with them, and he was moved to this property for those reasons. They accept there have never been any instances of him threatening or assaulting another neighbour.
[The tenant/s] denies that he made the alleged threat. He agrees he did have his spade at the time as he was gardening, however he says the neighbour started to film him and he got upset and agrees he began swearing. He says he never waved the spade above his head and just went back into the house when he began to get upset. He says the neighbour has got it in for him and does not like him. He is clear that he does not like violence, especially around children.
[The tenant/s] says he works closely with his key worker at [Organisation] and has been keeping a quiet, low profile as advised by them. [Key Worker] says that he always tells her when there is an incident and confirms he appears 1 Section 55A(7) of the RTA committed to keeping to himself. She does not believe he poses a threat to his neighbours.
A letter from [the tenant/’s] nurse at Te Whatu Ora was provided. It notes that he is under the care of the Community Mental Health Team and has a diagnosis of psychosis complicated by a severe trauma history. She accepts he has been disruptive towards his neighbours but says he is receiving treatment. She says that he has been assessed by her and his doctors as low risk to others and wrote to support him to maintain his accommodation. She says they will work to support him throughout the process.
The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, which is the balance of probabilities. Put another way, they need to prove to the Tribunal that it is more likely than not that [the tenant/s] did threaten his neighbour with a spade.
They have provided an email from the neighbour saying that [the tenant/s] did run down the driveway “waving a spade and yelling at the driver to “F** off”. He also told her to “F**k off you bitch” and waved the spade. He went inside when she called the Police who declined to intervene. She says she fears for herself and her kids as his behaviour is “unpredictable and intimidating”.
They also provided an email from [Organisation] saying they have been told that he “acts out” at night-time which appears to be a trigger for him, by yelling and screaming and banging on the fence.
Having assessed the evidence provided to me, I am not satisfied that it has been proven to the relevant evidential standard that [the tenant/s] did threaten his neighbour or her uber driver. I find it more likely than not that there was a discussion of some sort which involved swearing, but I do not find it proven that there was a specific threat in the use of the spade. This is because I find [the tenant/’s] oral evidence, along with his doctor’s letter and support worker’s oral evidence more compelling than the email from the neighbour. Both organisations are aware of what has been occurring but still support him to reside in this property.
Accordingly, the application pursuant to section 55 RTA must be dismissed.
Turning to section 56 of the RTA, I find that there has been anti-social behaviour on the part of [the tenant/s] in the form of yelling and swearing. I must therefore assess whether this breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
I do not find it is. [The tenant/s] is heavily supported by [Organisation] and his mental health team. I accept his evidence that he meets with the latter weekly and has a high level of engagement with them both. I am satisfied then that they are currently able to support him to cease engaging in behaviour that is disruptive and upsetting for his neighbours. There is also no evidence of past threatening behaviour.
I therefore dismiss the application, however I do note that should such incidents occur again and the landlord makes a further application, it is likely that [the tenant/s] will receive a different approach from the Tribunal. To put it another way, this is a last opportunity to [the tenant/s] to retain his tenancy.
I direct pursuant to section 95A of the RTA that both parties’ details be suppressed. This is as situation of housing for vulnerable people and [the tenant/s] has mental health issues that do not need to be aggravated by the publication of his details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4850960 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4850960 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions