What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4933953 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Ken Dahl at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and

How much money was awarded in case 4933953?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933953?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10573617-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4933953 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Ken Dahl at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and

How much money was awarded in case 4933953?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933953?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10573617-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4933953 — 14-day notice

Reasons

Given the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal has convened an urgent telephone hearing on 12 July 2024. The landlord was in attendance. There was no appearance by the tenant or a representative of the tenant. At the direction of the Tribunal, the hearing notice was put under the door of the tenancy.

The landlord seeks an immediate termination of the tenancy, on the grounds that the tenant attempted to start a fire, intending to burn down the premises.

The evidence before the Tribunal, is that the Tenancy is found in a large social housing, and community services complex. I understand the building has some 80 apartments over five floors, as well as providing other services and facilities for people who are ‘rough sleepers’, and those detoxifying from drugs. Mr Dahl was a tenant in that complex.

The evidence is further that on 1 July 2024, the tenant threatened staff on two occasions, that he was going to burn down the building. The tenant then went to his apartment, and shortly thereafter the staff were alerted when the fire system went off. Staff went to the relevant area, and found smoke billowing from one of the cupboards in the tenant’s room. The photographs provided suggest that items inside the wardrobe had been set on fire, and the inference that Mr Dahl started the fire is inescapable.

The file includes an email from the New Zealand police, confirming that Mr Dahl had been charged under the Crimes Act, with the offence of willfully setting fire to property / endangering life.

As indicated above, the landlord has applied to the Tribunal seeking a termination of Mr Dahl’s tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

ANALYSIS

Based on the evidence I have available, I am entirely satisfied that the evidence favours a conclusion, above the balance of probabilities, that the tenant deliberately set fire to a cupboard in his room.

The risk that presented to not only the tenant, but all of those in the complex, was extreme.

Section 55 of the RTA is a general termination provision, and confirms that the Tribunal shall order a termination of the tenancy, if the tenant has caused or threatened to cause substantial damage to the premises, which I accept would be the case here.

I am satisfied that a termination of the tenancy must be ordered, and that is to be effective immediately.

Order

The tenancy of Ken Dahl at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Given the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal has convened an urgent telephone hearing on 12 July 2024. The landlord was in attendance. There was no appearance by the tenant or a representative of the tenant. At the direction of the Tribunal, the hearing notice was put under the door of the tenancy.
The landlord seeks an immediate termination of the tenancy, on the grounds that the tenant attempted to start a fire, intending to burn down the premises.
The evidence before the Tribunal, is that the Tenancy is found in a large social housing, and community services complex. I understand the building has some 80 apartments over five floors, as well as providing other services and facilities for people who are ‘rough sleepers’, and those detoxifying from drugs. Mr Dahl was a tenant in that complex.
The evidence is further that on 1 July 2024, the tenant threatened staff on two occasions, that he was going to burn down the building. The tenant then went to his apartment, and shortly thereafter the staff were alerted when the fire system went off. Staff went to the relevant area, and found smoke billowing from one of the cupboards in the tenant’s room. The photographs provided suggest that items inside the wardrobe had been set on fire, and the inference that Mr Dahl started the fire is inescapable.
The file includes an email from the New Zealand police, confirming that Mr Dahl had been charged under the Crimes Act, with the offence of willfully setting fire to property / endangering life.
As indicated above, the landlord has applied to the Tribunal seeking a termination of Mr Dahl’s tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

ANALYSIS

Based on the evidence I have available, I am entirely satisfied that the evidence favours a conclusion, above the balance of probabilities, that the tenant deliberately set fire to a cupboard in his room.
The risk that presented to not only the tenant, but all of those in the complex, was extreme.
Section 55 of the RTA is a general termination provision, and confirms that the Tribunal shall order a termination of the tenancy, if the tenant has caused or threatened to cause substantial damage to the premises, which I accept would be the case here.
I am satisfied that a termination of the tenancy must be ordered, and that is to be effective immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933953 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933953 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions