What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4865062?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kolio Matai at Unit/Flat 43, 120 Donovan Street, Blockhouse Bay,

How much money was awarded in case 4865062?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4865062?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4865062?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10424119-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4865062?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kolio Matai at Unit/Flat 43, 120 Donovan Street, Blockhouse Bay,

How much money was awarded in case 4865062?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4865062?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4865062?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10424119-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 43, 120 Donovan Street, Blockhouse Bay, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4865062 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Kolio Matai at Unit/Flat 43, 120 Donovan Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at 11.59pm on 7 June 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by teleconference. Ms Gray represented the landlord, Kainga Ora. An earlier hearing was held at the District Court on 21 May 2024 and was adjourned. The landlord provided further evidence following this hearing.
This tenancy began on 29 September 2023. The rent is $84.00 per week. There is no bond. The tenancy premises is a unit within a block of three single bedroom dwellings. It is located within a larger complex comprising 53 dwellings owned by the landlord. The landlord issued breach notices concerning the tenant’s behaviour on 13 March and 12 April 2024. The landlord arranged a meeting with the tenant to discuss the various complaints on 12 April 2024, and sent a letter following this meeting.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). This is on the basis that the tenant has threatened to assault its other tenants within the complex. The landlord also seeks termination under section 56 of the RTA, claiming he was in breach of his responsibilities as a tenant by interfering with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the landlord’s other tenants. Legal framework
Section 55 of the RTA sets out various grounds for termination for either non- payment of rent, damage or assault. A tenancy must be terminated under section 55(1)(c) if the Tribunal is satisfied that: (c) the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons: (i) the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family: (ii) the owner of the premises or any member of the owner’s family: (iii) any agent of the landlord: (iv) any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part: (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
An assault includes an act or gesture to apply force to another person if the other person believes, on reasonable grounds, that the tenant has a present ability to give effect to his or her purpose 1 . A threat of assault is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force and does not require an intention or capacity to act on the threat, and does not require the threat to be passed onto the person to whom the threat related. 2
Under Section 56 of the RTA 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. 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. 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.
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. 1 Grey v Housing Corp of New Zealand DC Auckland CIV-2010-004-218, 5 May 2010, as noted in Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand by S Benson at 7.16.5, pg 201 2 Collins v Housing New Zealand [2004] NZAR 665 (HC) at [29]
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) of the RTA. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A of the RTA. The hearing
At the hearing, the landlord outlined the reasons why termination was sought, referring to written submissions and supporting evidence. Essentially, the landlord submitted that the Tribunal can be satisfied that the tenant threatened to physically assault his neighbours, who are also tenants of the landlord and therefore, section 55(1)(c) of the RTA applied. An incident on 15 March 2024 was identified. The landlord also submitted that section 56 of the RTA applied, since the tenant had breached his tenancy agreement and his responsibilities under section 40(2)(c) of the RTA by interfering with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the landlord’s other tenants. The landlord detailed the recorded instances where this had occurred.
The tenant explained the background to some of the events. He provided an anonymous letter written to him, believed to be from another tenant, which he received just before Christmas. He found this letter to be upsetting, due to its content, and the language used against him. He felt the other tenants had turned on him, within weeks of moving into the premises.
The tenant spoke about the events on 15 March 2024. He had approached the occupant of another unit about the letter, and knocked on the door. He denied making verbal threats. He accepts knocking on the door with a stick. It was the handle of an umbrella, which he carries with him. He also spoke about another incident involving a pot plant being thrown through the window of another tenant, breaking the window. He says this matter is before the police.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

In this case, having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find the landlord has established, with sufficient evidence, that this tenancy should be terminated.
The landlord has relied on two grounds for termination. In terms of termination under section 55(1)(c), the tenant has denied threatening to physically assault his neighbours. Furthermore, there has been no direct evidence from the other tenants who were involved in the incident. Because of the serious nature of the alleged conduct, and noting that criminal proceedings have not been finalised, on the available evidence, the grounds for termination under this provision have not been established.
However, I find the grounds for termination under section 56 of the RTA have been established, due to the tenant interfering with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of other tenants of the landlord. There is evidence of the tenant’s disruptive behaviour towards the landlord’s other tenants. The information from New Zealand Police records reports of the tenant having threatened to assault other tenants who are neighbours of the tenant. The landlord has provided details of reports from occupants of neighbouring tenancies about concerns regarding the tenant’s behaviour. These neighbours are also Kainga Ora tenants. Details of various incidents have been provided in the landlord’s written submissions.
The landlord’s supporting evidence includes: • Written statements from neighbouring tenants • Records of reports to the landlord’s staff from neighbours • Information obtained from New Zealand Police regarding call-outs. In the report, three call-outs were noted, for wilful damage, threat to kill/cause grievous bodily harm and disorderly behaviour. • Letters written by the landlord to the tenant concerning his behaviour following complaints from neighbouring tenants. A notice of breach dated 13 March 2024, two letters dated 12 April 2024, and a letter dated 16 April 2024 following a meeting on 12 April 2024. • A meeting on 12 April 2024 with the tenant to discuss his behaviour, which was attended by senior staff from Kainga Ora and two police officers. The discussions at this meeting were summarised in the 16 April 2024 letter. • Letter written to the Chief Executive of Kainga Ora by a lawyer, on behalf of several occupants, expressing concerns about the tenant’s behaviour, detailing the events, and urging the landlord to intervene and evict the tenant. • Text messages and emails from neighbouring tenants to the landlord regarding the tenant’s behaviour • Photographic and video evidence from neighbouring tenants • Medical report describing the symptoms suffered by one of the neighbouring tenants following an incident on 3 April 2024.
The landlord also issued breach notices to the tenant, so he has been informed about the consequences of further breaches under his tenancy agreement.
Overall, based on the evidence provided, I find that the tenant has disturbed the peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of their own premises. This has occurred on multiple occasions. Many of these events involve serious breaches and the tenant has continued to disturb the peace of the neighbouring tenants despite warnings received from the landlord.
In terms of the tenant’s evidence, I acknowledge that, for him, the letter he received was upsetting. However, apart from providing some context for why he felt angry and upset, there are insufficient grounds for the Tribunal to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. Most of the breaches are serious in nature and are incapable of remedy.
Accordingly, the tenancy is terminated, and possession is granted to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4865062 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 43, 120 Donovan Street, Blockhouse Bay,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4865062 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 43, 120 Donovan Street, Blockhouse Bay,

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