What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5018168 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 15a, 183 Strickland Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5018168?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5018168?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5018168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11018288-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5018168 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 15a, 183 Strickland Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5018168?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5018168?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5018168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11018288-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 15a, 183 Strickland Street, Addington, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5018168 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 15a, 183 Strickland Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024, Norman Kirk Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 3:30pm on Thursday, 31 October 2024.
[The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

Representatives of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the basis that the tenant has threatened to assault another resident of this social housing complex. See s55(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The law in relation to termination for a threat to assault was set out by the High Court in Collins v Housing New Zealand [2004] NZAR 665 as follows: Section 55: termination [26] Section 55 makes an order for termination mandatory in three categories of case, reserving to the Tribunal, however, a limited ability to refuse to make such an order. In that sense, it stands as an exception than to the more usual case where the Tribunal has a larger measure of discretion: s 56. [27] For the purpose of this case, the material aspects of s 55 are these: (1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, 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, the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family or any agent of the landlord or any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part, or any neighbour of the premises or of any such building. (2) The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) of this section if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies. [28] This ability can be acted on with some urgency. The landlord need not give the tenant any notice of intention to apply: subs (3). [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.”
I must terminate the tenancy if I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Ms Werahiko has threatened to assault any of the people listed in s55(1)(c).
I heard from another resident of this complex. He played a recording of Ms Werahiko bashing on a door and making threats to “smash his face in.” There were multiple threats in the recording, all of which were intimidating and would have been taken seriously by any objective person hearing them. The tenant provided evidence that he called the Police in response to the threats on the recording.
I also heard evidence from an employee of the landlord who has spoken to Ms Werahiko by telephone. The witness gave evidence that Ms Werahiko called the landlord and explained that her threats were a joke. The employee took notes of the call, loaded them into the landlord’s information system and referred to the notes during the hearing. Serious threats of assault are not a joke, and there was nothing on Ms Werahiko’s tone or demeanour in the recording which could reasonably be considered as “a joke” or “funny.”
I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Ms Werahiko has threatened to assault her neighbour. She did not attend the hearing to dispute the claims or explain her position.
The tenancy is terminated. The landlord can enforce this Order immediately.
As the landlord was the successful party, I have also awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 15a, 183 Strickland Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024, Norman Kirk Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 3:30pm on Thursday, 31 October 2024.
[The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

Representatives of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the basis that the tenant has threatened to assault another resident of this social housing complex. See s55(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The law in relation to termination for a threat to assault was set out by the High Court in Collins v Housing New Zealand [2004] NZAR 665 as follows: Section 55: termination [26] Section 55 makes an order for termination mandatory in three categories of case, reserving to the Tribunal, however, a limited ability to refuse to make such an order. In that sense, it stands as an exception than to the more usual case where the Tribunal has a larger measure of discretion: s 56. [27] For the purpose of this case, the material aspects of s 55 are these: (1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, 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, the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family or any agent of the landlord or any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part, or any neighbour of the premises or of any such building. (2) The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) of this section if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies. [28] This ability can be acted on with some urgency. The landlord need not give the tenant any notice of intention to apply: subs (3). [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.”
I must terminate the tenancy if I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Ms Werahiko has threatened to assault any of the people listed in s55(1)(c).
I heard from another resident of this complex. He played a recording of Ms Werahiko bashing on a door and making threats to “smash his face in.” There were multiple threats in the recording, all of which were intimidating and would have been taken seriously by any objective person hearing them. The tenant provided evidence that he called the Police in response to the threats on the recording.
I also heard evidence from an employee of the landlord who has spoken to Ms Werahiko by telephone. The witness gave evidence that Ms Werahiko called the landlord and explained that her threats were a joke. The employee took notes of the call, loaded them into the landlord’s information system and referred to the notes during the hearing. Serious threats of assault are not a joke, and there was nothing on Ms Werahiko’s tone or demeanour in the recording which could reasonably be considered as “a joke” or “funny.”
I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Ms Werahiko has threatened to assault her neighbour. She did not attend the hearing to dispute the claims or explain her position.
The tenancy is terminated. The landlord can enforce this Order immediately.
As the landlord was the successful party, I have also awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5018168 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 15a, 183 Strickland Street, Addington,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5018168 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 15a, 183 Strickland Street, Addington,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions