What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4993288 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4993288?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4993288?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4993288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10909970-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4993288 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4993288?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4993288?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4993288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10909970-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 201 Sawyers Arms Road, Bishopdale, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4993288 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for threat of assault. See s55(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The s55(1)(c) RTA provides that the tenancy shall be terminated if the tenant assaulted or threatened to assault the landlord, any member of the landlord’s family or any agent of the landlord.
If the threat of assault is established, termination can be refused if, but only if, the landlord has been compensated for any loss from the breach and a further breach of that kind is unlikely. See s55(2) RTA and Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd [2004] NZAR 665.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The first issue which the landlord must prove in this case, is whether a threat of assault was made.
Oaks Property Management Limited v Tenant [2022] NZTT 4345545 discusses the evidential burden and type of evidence required for an application to terminate a tenancy for anti-social behaviour. Similar considerations apply for termination for alleged assault. In this case, the landlord had assumed that its staff could attend the hearing by telephone to give evidence, and a manager asked to give evidence of what other staff had witnessed because of concerns for safety. I did ultimately hear from the witnesses in person, and the differences in their accounts only reinforced that it is in the interests of justice for the Tribunal to see and hear directly from a witness where there is no contemporaneous, corroborating evidence and credibility is in issue.
In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd [2004] NZAR 665, the High Court stated: [29] 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 to, or be passed on to, the person to whom the threat relates: Police v Lloyd [1973] 2 NZLR 486 (CA); R v Meek [1981] l NZLR 499 (CA). [30] Under the criminal law, what does have to be proved is the intent that the threat be taken seriously by the person to whom it is made. But how far that applies under this Act is another question. The intent of s 55 is to protect the classes of persons to whom it refers: the landlord, the landlord’s family or agents, and indeed other occupiers. In this context, the fact of a threat has to be enough.”
The landlord claims that [The tenant/s] made a threat to assault one of its employees when two other employees carried out a routine annual inspection at the property on 25 July 2024. In particular, the landlord says that the tenant twice said that he would “smash” the employee.
The tenants were upset with an employee of the landlord. They say that the employee had not given them enough notice of an inspection and required them to attend an inspection when they were away for a funeral. The tenants say told that employee that he was not to carry out the inspection. He arranged for his colleagues to do so.
I heard evidence from both the colleagues who attended the inspection on 25 July 2024. Their written statements were consistent, but their oral evidence was not. Both written statements said that [The tenant/s] made the threat at the start of the inspection and later during a discussion with one of the employees.
In oral evidence, the witnesses gave differing accounts of what was said, the tone at the inspection and the demeanour of the tenants. Both written statements said that [The tenant/s] twice said that he would “smash” the other employee. One of the witnesses was firm in their account of what was said but had less engagement with [The tenant/s] during the inspection. The other employee was more vague, particularly when asked for details and context of the first alleged threat. In fact, that witness didn’t really recall the first alleged threat when giving oral evidence.
The respondent disputes the evidence. [The tenant/s] says one of the employees at the inspection was a former youth worker who engaged in a discussion with [The tenant/s] about his past and how he would have reacted to difficult situations when he was younger. The tenant says that, in response to the query from the landlord’s employee, he said, in the past, he would have “smashed” the employee who had upset him.
[The tenant/s] also conceded that he told the employees that it was just as well the other employee had not attended the inspection. He says that is because he would not have allowed that person on site, not because he would “smash” the employee.
When the tenants received the Tribunal application, they went into the landlord’s office. I watched a recording of the visit. The tenants were agitated and upset. Significantly, their explanation of what happened at the inspection is consistent with the explanation they gave to the Tribunal. The Landlord did not refer to that visit or address the tenant’s explanation of what had occurred at the inspection, despite having the onus of proof and despite being on notice that the tenant disagrees with its employees’ recollection of events.
Much of the landlord’s evidence was directed towards how it (and its employees) have responded to the alleged threat. While that evidence provides some context, it does not go to establish whether or not a threat occurred. The landlord also provided information it has received from the Police regarding [The tenant/s] prior convictions. That information was more prejudicial than probative. [The tenant/s] does have prior convictions, some for violence. The most recent one was 5 years ago. Again, that evidence does not establish whether a threat occurred in this case.
Looking at the evidence as a whole, [The tenant/s] description of the conversation is plausible; that he did not threaten anyone but discussed how he used to react to a challenging situation. While there can be some allowance for different recollections between the landlord’s staff, I have difficulty reconciling their evidence as to the demeanour of [The tenant/s], with one commenting that they felt relatively relaxed at the inspection. Overall, the landlord has not discharged the onus of proving that it is more likely than not that [The tenant/s] made a threat to assault one if its staff members at the inspection on 25 July 2024.
For that reason, the application is dismissed.
The landlord applied for suppression of the tenant’s details and, as the tenant was the successful party I have granted that request.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for threat of assault. See s55(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The s55(1)(c) RTA provides that the tenancy shall be terminated if the tenant assaulted or threatened to assault the landlord, any member of the landlord’s family or any agent of the landlord.
If the threat of assault is established, termination can be refused if, but only if, the landlord has been compensated for any loss from the breach and a further breach of that kind is unlikely. See s55(2) RTA and Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd [2004] NZAR 665.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The first issue which the landlord must prove in this case, is whether a threat of assault was made.
Oaks Property Management Limited v Tenant [2022] NZTT 4345545 discusses the evidential burden and type of evidence required for an application to terminate a tenancy for anti-social behaviour. Similar considerations apply for termination for alleged assault. In this case, the landlord had assumed that its staff could attend the hearing by telephone to give evidence, and a manager asked to give evidence of what other staff had witnessed because of concerns for safety. I did ultimately hear from the witnesses in person, and the differences in their accounts only reinforced that it is in the interests of justice for the Tribunal to see and hear directly from a witness where there is no contemporaneous, corroborating evidence and credibility is in issue.
In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd [2004] NZAR 665, the High Court stated: [29] 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 to, or be passed on to, the person to whom the threat relates: Police v Lloyd [1973] 2 NZLR 486 (CA); R v Meek [1981] l NZLR 499 (CA). [30] Under the criminal law, what does have to be proved is the intent that the threat be taken seriously by the person to whom it is made. But how far that applies under this Act is another question. The intent of s 55 is to protect the classes of persons to whom it refers: the landlord, the landlord’s family or agents, and indeed other occupiers. In this context, the fact of a threat has to be enough.”
The landlord claims that [The tenant/s] made a threat to assault one of its employees when two other employees carried out a routine annual inspection at the property on 25 July 2024. In particular, the landlord says that the tenant twice said that he would “smash” the employee.
The tenants were upset with an employee of the landlord. They say that the employee had not given them enough notice of an inspection and required them to attend an inspection when they were away for a funeral. The tenants say told that employee that he was not to carry out the inspection. He arranged for his colleagues to do so.
I heard evidence from both the colleagues who attended the inspection on 25 July 2024. Their written statements were consistent, but their oral evidence was not. Both written statements said that [The tenant/s] made the threat at the start of the inspection and later during a discussion with one of the employees.
In oral evidence, the witnesses gave differing accounts of what was said, the tone at the inspection and the demeanour of the tenants. Both written statements said that [The tenant/s] twice said that he would “smash” the other employee. One of the witnesses was firm in their account of what was said but had less engagement with [The tenant/s] during the inspection. The other employee was more vague, particularly when asked for details and context of the first alleged threat. In fact, that witness didn’t really recall the first alleged threat when giving oral evidence.
The respondent disputes the evidence. [The tenant/s] says one of the employees at the inspection was a former youth worker who engaged in a discussion with [The tenant/s] about his past and how he would have reacted to difficult situations when he was younger. The tenant says that, in response to the query from the landlord’s employee, he said, in the past, he would have “smashed” the employee who had upset him.
[The tenant/s] also conceded that he told the employees that it was just as well the other employee had not attended the inspection. He says that is because he would not have allowed that person on site, not because he would “smash” the employee.
When the tenants received the Tribunal application, they went into the landlord’s office. I watched a recording of the visit. The tenants were agitated and upset. Significantly, their explanation of what happened at the inspection is consistent with the explanation they gave to the Tribunal. The Landlord did not refer to that visit or address the tenant’s explanation of what had occurred at the inspection, despite having the onus of proof and despite being on notice that the tenant disagrees with its employees’ recollection of events.
Much of the landlord’s evidence was directed towards how it (and its employees) have responded to the alleged threat. While that evidence provides some context, it does not go to establish whether or not a threat occurred. The landlord also provided information it has received from the Police regarding [The tenant/s] prior convictions. That information was more prejudicial than probative. [The tenant/s] does have prior convictions, some for violence. The most recent one was 5 years ago. Again, that evidence does not establish whether a threat occurred in this case.
Looking at the evidence as a whole, [The tenant/s] description of the conversation is plausible; that he did not threaten anyone but discussed how he used to react to a challenging situation. While there can be some allowance for different recollections between the landlord’s staff, I have difficulty reconciling their evidence as to the demeanour of [The tenant/s], with one commenting that they felt relatively relaxed at the inspection. Overall, the landlord has not discharged the onus of proving that it is more likely than not that [The tenant/s] made a threat to assault one if its staff members at the inspection on 25 July 2024.
For that reason, the application is dismissed.
The landlord applied for suppression of the tenant’s details and, as the tenant was the successful party I have granted that request.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4993288 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 201 Sawyers Arms Road, Bishopdale,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4993288 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 201 Sawyers Arms Road, Bishopdale,

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