Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4931795 — 14-day notice at 14 Concord Place, Burwood, Christchurch 8083
Decided 14 Aug 2024 · Published 14 Aug 2024 · Application 4931795
Mixed / unclear
- 14-day notice
- Harassment
Order
- The tenancy of Hati Otto at 14 Concord Place, Burwood, Christchurch 8083 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust on Wednesday 14 September 2024.
- Hati Otto is to pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust the sum of $20.44 immediately, being the Tribunal application fee.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Olds and Mr Woodbury represented the landlord. Mr Otto was assisted by Mr McDougall and Mr Trembath.
- 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 7 April 2024, Mr Otto threatened a neighbour, Mr Cane who is also a tenant of the complex, with a knife. The landlord’s evidence is supported by the evidence of the landlord’s witnesses, Mr Cane and Mr Sloan. Mr Sloan is another tenant of the complex and occupies the unit beside Mr Cane’s unit.
- It was Mr Cane’s evidence that he was watering the lawn in front of his unit when Mr Otto walked up to him making racial comments about another tenant of the complex (Andrew). He said that Mr Otto was “in his face” and was “jumping around wanting to fight”. He thought that Mr Otto was going to hit him so he sprayed him with his hose. Mr Otto went back to his unit across the road but came back out holding a large carving knife. He said that he was walking quickly towards him with the blade of the knife pointed towards him. He said that he was scared and went inside his unit and locked the door. Mr Otto was at his doorstep by that time but he left soon after.
- Mr Sloane said that he was sitting in his lounge with the door open and saw Mr Cane spray Mr Otto with the hose. He said that he also saw Mr Otto return with the knife and go up to Mr Cane’s door with it. He said that he was scared so he phoned the Police. The Police came but no charges have been laid against Mr Otto regarding the incident.
- Mr Otto denies threatening Mr Cane with a knife. He said that after he was sprayed with water by Mr Cane he went inside his unit and did not come out again until approximately one hour later. He said that he does not own any knives other than bread and butter (table) knives.
- I find that it is more likely than not that Mr Otto did threaten Mr Cane with a knife. Both Mr Cane and Mr Sloane were clear and consistent in their evidence regarding the incident with the knife. I also consider that such a threat is likely within Mr Otto’s character. The landlord has issued Mr Otto with two ‘anti-social behaviour’ notices for threatening other tenants in the complex. One on 19 September 2023 for threatening to “put a bullet through [another tenant’s] head” and another on 25 July 2023 for threatening to kill and threatening to stab another neighbour. Mr Otto did not dispute these incidents.
- I am therefore satisfied that the criteria for termination of the tenancy in section 55(1)(c) of the Act has been established. While I accept Mr Otto’s evidence, which was supported by the evidence of Mr Trembath and Mr McDougall, that Mr Otto has himself been subjected to abuse from other tenants of the complex, the only discretion I have to not terminate the tenancy when a tenant threatens to assault 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 Mr Otto’s favour. Of particular concern is the two previous threatening incidents which resulted in the issuing of the notices (outlined above) and that Mr Otto’s behaviour has escalated to threatening another with a knife.
- He landlord has been successful in its claim and is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee.