What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5003309 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for name suppression has been made in this case and the

How much money was awarded in case 5003309?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5003309?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5003309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10968581-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5003309 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for name suppression has been made in this case and the

How much money was awarded in case 5003309?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5003309?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5003309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10968581-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5003309 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for name suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Olds and Mr Woodbury represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied to terminate the tenancy based on an assault by the partner/girlfriend of the tenant on another tenant at this social housing complex.
I heard evidence from the tenant who was assaulted (who attended by phone); and from another tenant who witnessed the assault (who gave evidence in person). The landlord also produced a written statement from a tenant who has described arguments between the tenant named in this application and his girlfriend over 2 days before the assault occurred. Background
The tenant resides in a unit at this social housing complex.
His tenancy agreement provides that he is to be the sole occupant.
For some time, he has had his girlfriend stay with him sometimes several nights each week, though she has her own tenancy which is not part of this complex.
The tenant’s girlfriend has a history of mental illness. The relationship between her and the tenant is volatile. They have loud arguments and the police have attended on occasions as a result.
The landlord has issued 14-day breach notices for the tenant and his girlfriend disturbing the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of other tenants in the complex.
On 19 June 2024, the tenant’s girlfriend assaulted another tenant causing her injuries which required her to attend hospital. In evidence, the assaulted tenant described her injuries which included bruises and abrasions to multiple areas of her body.
The tenant who was assaulted called the police after the assault took place. They attended and recorded the incident. It is unclear whether the police have initiated any prosecution against the aggressor, the tenant’s girlfriend.
In addition to the assault the tenant’s girlfriend damaged and apparently has taken the victim’s glasses.
After the assault, the landlord issued an anti-social behaviour notice on the tenant. It was the first and so far, the only anti-social behaviour notice issued. Law
The landlord has applied to terminate the tenant’s tenancy on the ground that a person (his girlfriend) at the premises with his consent, has assaulted a neighbour. Section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) enables the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy when an assault is proved. It states: 55 Termination on non-payment of rent, damage, or assault (1) Subject to subsection (2), on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— (c) the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons: ... (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
Section 41 RTA provides in part: 41 Tenant’s responsibility for actions of others (1) The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. Has the landlord established grounds for termination under section 55(1)(c)

RTA?

I confirmed that the landlord’s application was confined to termination under section 55(1)(c) RTA only. It does not seek termination based on the several breach notices issued.
The difficulty the landlord faces is this. The tenant did not assault the neighbouring tenant; his girlfriend did.
In evidence, the tenant said he was unaware of the assault when it occurred. Had he witnessed it he said he would have intervened.
The tenant said his girlfriend had no cell phone. She would just turn up without notice. He said his girlfriend had not stayed with him the night before the assault, nor was she at his unit before it occurred.
Premises is defined in section 2 RTA to mean: premises includes (other than in relation to a boarding house tenancy, in which case the definition in section 66B applies)— (a) any part of any premises; and (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and (c) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land
The definition applies to the land that attached to the tenancy, and any part of the tenancy premises.
Here, the tenant’s partner came to the complex, but not to the tenant’s premises, his unit or the land that attaches to his premises. He had no idea she was at the complex.
The landlord has not proved that the tenant caused or permitted his girlfriend to assault the neighbouring tenant. Had she been at his unit and went from there to commit the assault, section 55(1)(c) RTA would likely be met, but that is not what occurred.
Because the tenant was unaware that his girlfriend was at the complex (as opposed to his premises, which she was not) he cannot be said to have caused or permitted his girlfriend to commit the assault (section 55(1)(c) RTA). Nor can he be responsible for her actions under section 41(1) RTA because his girlfriend was not in the premises with the tenant’s permission.
This was an assault by a member of the public (who happened to be the tenant’s girlfriend) but in circumstances where she was not in his premises with his permission, nor did he cause or permit her to assault the neighbour, as he was unaware of the assault having occurred until later.
It is an assault that falls under the criminal law but does not satisfy the RTA criteria for termination of the tenant’s tenancy. Result
For the reasons given, I dismiss the application.
The application being unsuccessful, the landlord is not entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant, being successful in his defence, applied for, and is entitled to, an order for name suppression – see section 95A RTA.

Order

An application for name suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Olds and Mr Woodbury represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied to terminate the tenancy based on an assault by the partner/girlfriend of the tenant on another tenant at this social housing complex.
I heard evidence from the tenant who was assaulted (who attended by phone); and from another tenant who witnessed the assault (who gave evidence in person). The landlord also produced a written statement from a tenant who has described arguments between the tenant named in this application and his girlfriend over 2 days before the assault occurred. Background
The tenant resides in a unit at this social housing complex.
His tenancy agreement provides that he is to be the sole occupant.
For some time, he has had his girlfriend stay with him sometimes several nights each week, though she has her own tenancy which is not part of this complex.
The tenant’s girlfriend has a history of mental illness. The relationship between her and the tenant is volatile. They have loud arguments and the police have attended on occasions as a result.
The landlord has issued 14-day breach notices for the tenant and his girlfriend disturbing the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of other tenants in the complex.
On 19 June 2024, the tenant’s girlfriend assaulted another tenant causing her injuries which required her to attend hospital. In evidence, the assaulted tenant described her injuries which included bruises and abrasions to multiple areas of her body.
The tenant who was assaulted called the police after the assault took place. They attended and recorded the incident. It is unclear whether the police have initiated any prosecution against the aggressor, the tenant’s girlfriend.
In addition to the assault the tenant’s girlfriend damaged and apparently has taken the victim’s glasses.
After the assault, the landlord issued an anti-social behaviour notice on the tenant. It was the first and so far, the only anti-social behaviour notice issued. Law
The landlord has applied to terminate the tenant’s tenancy on the ground that a person (his girlfriend) at the premises with his consent, has assaulted a neighbour. Section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) enables the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy when an assault is proved. It states: 55 Termination on non-payment of rent, damage, or assault (1) Subject to subsection (2), on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— (c) the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons: ... (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
Section 41 RTA provides in part: 41 Tenant’s responsibility for actions of others (1) The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. Has the landlord established grounds for termination under section 55(1)(c)

RTA?

I confirmed that the landlord’s application was confined to termination under section 55(1)(c) RTA only. It does not seek termination based on the several breach notices issued.
The difficulty the landlord faces is this. The tenant did not assault the neighbouring tenant; his girlfriend did.
In evidence, the tenant said he was unaware of the assault when it occurred. Had he witnessed it he said he would have intervened.
The tenant said his girlfriend had no cell phone. She would just turn up without notice. He said his girlfriend had not stayed with him the night before the assault, nor was she at his unit before it occurred.
Premises is defined in section 2 RTA to mean: premises includes (other than in relation to a boarding house tenancy, in which case the definition in section 66B applies)— (a) any part of any premises; and (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and (c) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land
The definition applies to the land that attached to the tenancy, and any part of the tenancy premises.
Here, the tenant’s partner came to the complex, but not to the tenant’s premises, his unit or the land that attaches to his premises. He had no idea she was at the complex.
The landlord has not proved that the tenant caused or permitted his girlfriend to assault the neighbouring tenant. Had she been at his unit and went from there to commit the assault, section 55(1)(c) RTA would likely be met, but that is not what occurred.
Because the tenant was unaware that his girlfriend was at the complex (as opposed to his premises, which she was not) he cannot be said to have caused or permitted his girlfriend to commit the assault (section 55(1)(c) RTA). Nor can he be responsible for her actions under section 41(1) RTA because his girlfriend was not in the premises with the tenant’s permission.
This was an assault by a member of the public (who happened to be the tenant’s girlfriend) but in circumstances where she was not in his premises with his permission, nor did he cause or permit her to assault the neighbour, as he was unaware of the assault having occurred until later.
It is an assault that falls under the criminal law but does not satisfy the RTA criteria for termination of the tenant’s tenancy. Result
For the reasons given, I dismiss the application.
The application being unsuccessful, the landlord is not entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant, being successful in his defence, applied for, and is entitled to, an order for name suppression – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5003309 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5003309 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions