What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4992049 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jenna Cherie Forrest at [Tenancy address suppressed] is

How much money was awarded in case 4992049?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4992049?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4992049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10909903-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4992049 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jenna Cherie Forrest at [Tenancy address suppressed] is

How much money was awarded in case 4992049?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4992049?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4992049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10909903-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4992049 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. That representation included a local manager. There was no appearance by the tenant. Based on a recounting of a prior conversation between her and the landlord, I believe she was aware of the application for termination as well as the time, date and location of this hearing.

I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing.

The landlord had applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations per s 55(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), or in the alternative through ss 56(2) and s 40(2)(c) RTA. 1 I understand the landlord has already explained to the tenant how any termination, if the application was successful, would be managed. The tenancy is terminated immediately to allow the landlord to manage the exit as necessary but unless there are safety or behaviour concerns, it is expected the parties will work together on how best to exit this tenancy in an appropriate manner.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: “It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.

The tenancy commenced 18 March 2022. The premises is one of five units at the address. Issues between an immediate neighbour and the tenant, other occupants of the premises, and guests escalated in May 2024 and have continued.

The immediate neighbour involved in this ongoing problem resides at his address via family ownership rather than any tenancy. Should the tenancy be terminated per s 55(1)(c) RTA?

Section 55(1)(c) RTA provides for the termination of a tenancy where the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family, any agent of the landlord, or any neighbour of the premises.

The landlord claimed grounds for termination per this section after the following alleged events involving a neighbour: DateIssue 17 May 2024 The neighbour and two occupants or guests at the premises (not the tenant) were involved in an altercation. This took place in a public area just outside the two properties. 21 May 2024 The neighbour was videoing the occupants of the premises (this was accounted for a protective measure advised by police). The tenant slapped the phone away and assaulted the tenant by slapping his face. This was confirmed to the landlord in a later meeting, with the advice the matter had been dealt with by police and a fine or reparation of $300.00 due to the neighbour. Independently, the neighbour recounted a similar outcome, albeit noting no payment had been received. The request for the police report by the landlord under the OIA was declined. 30 July 2024 During darkness, the neighbour went past the premises where the tenant and others were exiting a vehicle to enter the premises. He used his phone to record what was happening. The tenant was identified in that video by the landlord. Others made a series of threats to the neighbour. While the tenant did not make threats, she failed to stop the threats. 31 July 2024 An unidentified male from the premises approaches the neighbour when the neighbour was standing outside his property. The male appears to be videoing the neighbour and getting “in his face”. No sound is available, but the neighbour reported further abuse. The neighbour had CCTV installed and that provided the video that was reviewed. 13 August 2024 Police involvement continued and an email to the landlord from the police this day was provided: The redacted email to the landlord stated (in part):

The landlord submitted the application for termination on 3 September 2024.

The Tribunal must terminate the tenancy if it is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault any of the persons listed in s 55(1)(c) RTA. This includes the immediate neighbour here.

In R v Meek [1981] 1 NZLR 499 (CA) the Court discussed what is meant by “threatened to assault” and considered that: “To threaten to assault means just what it says: It is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough. Even under the criminal law, there is no need to intend to act on the threat; or to have the capacity to act on it; or that it be passed on to the person to whom the threat relates.”

I am satisfied the action of the tenant on 21 May 2024 was more than likely an assault on the neighbour. The prior and subsequent interactions of the same neighbour with others from or at the premises were threatening. The threats were serious in nature and the concerns of the neighbour and his whanau legitimate.

I find the grounds for termination per s 55(1(c)(v) RTA are established, and the tenancy must be terminated. Other grounds for termination

Even if I am wrong in the above determination, I consider grounds for termination under s 56(1) RTA are also evidentially established. The multiple breaches are of such a nature that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. Suppression

Section 95A RTA provides the Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

Given the circumstances and disclosure in this order, I have exercised my initiative and ordered suppression of the tenancy address only.

Reasons

I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing.

The immediate neighbour involved in this ongoing problem resides at his address via family ownership rather than any tenancy. Should the tenancy be terminated per s 55(1)(c) RTA?

The landlord submitted the application for termination on 3 September 2024.

I find the grounds for termination per s 55(1(c)(v) RTA are established, and the tenancy must be terminated. Other grounds for termination

Given the circumstances and disclosure in this order, I have exercised my initiative and ordered suppression of the tenancy address only.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4992049 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4992049 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions