What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4994688?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Dallas Sew Hoy at 7 Lyn Christie Place, Wainoni, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 4994688?

Nated, And Possession Is Granted To…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4994688?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4994688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10912275-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4994688?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Dallas Sew Hoy at 7 Lyn Christie Place, Wainoni, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 4994688?

Nated, And Possession Is Granted To…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4994688?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4994688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10912275-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Lyn Christie Place, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4994688 — 14-day notice

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4994688. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
nated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 6pm on Tuesday 15 October 2024. 2. Dallas Sew H	$27.00		nated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 6pm on Tuesday 15 October 2024. 2. Dallas Sew H

Order

The tenancy of Dallas Sew Hoy at 7 Lyn Christie Place, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 6pm on Tuesday 15 October 2024.
Dallas Sew Hoy must pay $27.00 to Otautahi Community Housing Trust immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Mr Woodbury attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant did not attend.
Two witnesses also appeared in support of the landlord’s claim.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under s55(1)(c)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) for assault and threats to assault an agent of the landlord.

Was there an assault and/or a threat to assault?

A female contractor gave evidence that she was contracted, through her employer, to attend to the lawns at the complex of which the tenancy address forms a part as well as other properties owned by the landlord.
She attended the complex with two colleagues on 29 August 2024. One colleague had already left, and she and a male colleague were finishing up at around 2.30pm.
Her vehicle was parked on the public road outside the complex where the tenancy is located. The tenancy address faces the same road.
She was balanced on the towbar or arm of her trailer spreading lawn clippings and was still wearing her safety earmuffs.
Without warning a person came up behind her and “slapped or forcibly pushed” her in the back.
This person then accused her of knocking over the council wheelie bins.
The witness said she was called a “lazy whore” and a further verbal interaction occurred during which the tenant made an attempt to grab her cell phone which was visible in her pocket. This may have been in connection with his comment about calling her boss, but she could not be sure of that.
In any case, she avoided contact by putting her hands out in front of her and the tenant then gave up trying to get the phone.
He then said, “If I see you on the street again, I will wipe that smile off your face.”
The witness said she had smiled at the irony when the tenant called her lazy due to the fact that she was actually working when he slapped or pushed her. She thought the wording of his threat must have been in relation to that smile.
Her description of the person matches the tenant, and she witnessed the person go into the tenant’s premises. She had also earlier witnessed him leaving those premises.
The witness said she was “very shaken” by the assault and worried about the threat to assault her again.
She has to return to the complex fortnightly over the warmer months as part of her employment. She has not been back to the complex since the incident.
The female contractor’s male colleague also gave evidence which supported the evidence above.
He also mentioned the fact that the tenant was holding what appeared to be an empty glass in his hand. When asked why he had mentioned this in his statement, he indicated that the tenant had raised the glass to some extent and the witness was concerned about what that might have suggested. The existence of the glass made him more concerned about his colleague’s safety.
The evidence was provided by each witness both in writing in a signed statement and orally under a promise to tell the truth.
The evidence was consistent, and I found both witnesses reliable.
Assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to another person (Crimes Act 1961 section 2(1)).
A threat to assault means “an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force” (Collins v Housing New Zealand HC Christchurch 2 July 2004).
The standard of proof applicable in this case is on the balance of probabilities but where an allegation would amount to a criminal offence, the Tribunal generally requires better evidence than would otherwise be needed.
The landlord provided written statements from two witnesses who also gave oral evidence confirming those statements and providing further information.
The landlord’s representative also gave oral evidence that he been in contact with tenant after being alerted to this incident and the tenant had acknowledged the incident and referred to the wheelie bins being knocked over. He had also asked the representative to, “tell her that he is sorry and that it’s now OK”.
The landlord’s representative provided copies of notebook entries recorded at the time or shortly after this phone call.
On the evidence provided to the Tribunal at the hearing, I find that there was both an assault and a threat of further assault by the tenant against the female contractor.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

There is limited jurisdiction for the tribunal to refuse to terminate under s55(1)(c)(iii) if satisfied, as I am, that there has been an assault and a threat to assault. a. The breach must have been remedied if that is possible; and b. The landlord must be compensated for any loss arising from the breach; and c. The Tribunal must be satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the kind to which the section applies.
Remedy is not possible here and there is no loss claimed for which the landlord can be compensated.
The only evidence that suggests that further breaches may not occur is the tenant’s comment to the landlord’s agent that he “is sorry” and that “it’s now ok”.
In the words of her colleague, the female contractor was left, “shaken up” and “alarmed and frightened” by the assault. She feels uneasy about returning to the complex to continue her work due to the threat of further assault.
Given the clear threat heard by both witnesses, the fact that an assault had already taken place, and the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, I cannot be satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit further breaches of this kind.
The tenancy is terminated as ordered above.
As Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4994688. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
nated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 6pm on Tuesday 15 October 2024. 2. Dallas Sew H	$27.00		nated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 6pm on Tuesday 15 October 2024. 2. Dallas Sew H

Order

The tenancy of Dallas Sew Hoy at 7 Lyn Christie Place, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 6pm on Tuesday 15 October 2024.
Dallas Sew Hoy must pay $27.00 to Otautahi Community Housing Trust immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Mr Woodbury attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant did not attend.
Two witnesses also appeared in support of the landlord’s claim.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under s55(1)(c)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) for assault and threats to assault an agent of the landlord.

Was there an assault and/or a threat to assault?

A female contractor gave evidence that she was contracted, through her employer, to attend to the lawns at the complex of which the tenancy address forms a part as well as other properties owned by the landlord.
She attended the complex with two colleagues on 29 August 2024. One colleague had already left, and she and a male colleague were finishing up at around 2.30pm.
Her vehicle was parked on the public road outside the complex where the tenancy is located. The tenancy address faces the same road.
She was balanced on the towbar or arm of her trailer spreading lawn clippings and was still wearing her safety earmuffs.
Without warning a person came up behind her and “slapped or forcibly pushed” her in the back.
This person then accused her of knocking over the council wheelie bins.
The witness said she was called a “lazy whore” and a further verbal interaction occurred during which the tenant made an attempt to grab her cell phone which was visible in her pocket. This may have been in connection with his comment about calling her boss, but she could not be sure of that.
In any case, she avoided contact by putting her hands out in front of her and the tenant then gave up trying to get the phone.
He then said, “If I see you on the street again, I will wipe that smile off your face.”
The witness said she had smiled at the irony when the tenant called her lazy due to the fact that she was actually working when he slapped or pushed her. She thought the wording of his threat must have been in relation to that smile.
Her description of the person matches the tenant, and she witnessed the person go into the tenant’s premises. She had also earlier witnessed him leaving those premises.
The witness said she was “very shaken” by the assault and worried about the threat to assault her again.
She has to return to the complex fortnightly over the warmer months as part of her employment. She has not been back to the complex since the incident.
The female contractor’s male colleague also gave evidence which supported the evidence above.
He also mentioned the fact that the tenant was holding what appeared to be an empty glass in his hand. When asked why he had mentioned this in his statement, he indicated that the tenant had raised the glass to some extent and the witness was concerned about what that might have suggested. The existence of the glass made him more concerned about his colleague’s safety.
The evidence was provided by each witness both in writing in a signed statement and orally under a promise to tell the truth.
The evidence was consistent, and I found both witnesses reliable.
Assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to another person (Crimes Act 1961 section 2(1)).
A threat to assault means “an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force” (Collins v Housing New Zealand HC Christchurch 2 July 2004).
The standard of proof applicable in this case is on the balance of probabilities but where an allegation would amount to a criminal offence, the Tribunal generally requires better evidence than would otherwise be needed.
The landlord provided written statements from two witnesses who also gave oral evidence confirming those statements and providing further information.
The landlord’s representative also gave oral evidence that he been in contact with tenant after being alerted to this incident and the tenant had acknowledged the incident and referred to the wheelie bins being knocked over. He had also asked the representative to, “tell her that he is sorry and that it’s now OK”.
The landlord’s representative provided copies of notebook entries recorded at the time or shortly after this phone call.
On the evidence provided to the Tribunal at the hearing, I find that there was both an assault and a threat of further assault by the tenant against the female contractor.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

There is limited jurisdiction for the tribunal to refuse to terminate under s55(1)(c)(iii) if satisfied, as I am, that there has been an assault and a threat to assault. a. The breach must have been remedied if that is possible; and b. The landlord must be compensated for any loss arising from the breach; and c. The Tribunal must be satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the kind to which the section applies.
Remedy is not possible here and there is no loss claimed for which the landlord can be compensated.
The only evidence that suggests that further breaches may not occur is the tenant’s comment to the landlord’s agent that he “is sorry” and that “it’s now ok”.
In the words of her colleague, the female contractor was left, “shaken up” and “alarmed and frightened” by the assault. She feels uneasy about returning to the complex to continue her work due to the threat of further assault.
Given the clear threat heard by both witnesses, the fact that an assault had already taken place, and the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, I cannot be satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit further breaches of this kind.
The tenancy is terminated as ordered above.
As Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4994688 — 14-day notice at 7 Lyn Christie Place, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4994688 — 14-day notice at 7 Lyn Christie Place, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there an assault and/or a threat to assault?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there an assault and/or a threat to assault?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions