What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5076149?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Paul James Hancox at 7 Betty Place, Aranui, Christchurch 8061

How much money was awarded in case 5076149?

Rent Arrears: $8,955.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5076149?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5076149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11206869-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5076149?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Paul James Hancox at 7 Betty Place, Aranui, Christchurch 8061

How much money was awarded in case 5076149?

Rent Arrears: $8,955.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5076149?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5076149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11206869-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Betty Place, Aranui, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5076149 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5076149 — net $8,955.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13/12/2024	$8,955.85	Rent arrears to 13/12/2024
Net award	$8,955.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,955.85

Order

The tenancy of Paul James Hancox at 7 Betty Place, Aranui, Christchurch 8061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes immediately.
Paul James Hancox must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $8955.85 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing conducted remotely. Ms Thompson-Wise represented Kainga Ora (‘KO”). Later in the hearing Mr L and Ms D attended to give evidence supported by their Housing Support Manager.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on two grounds. The first is on the basis rent arrears and the second is on the basis of the breach by the tenant of their obligations.
To find the claim established the Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that is, it is more likely than not, that the events which gave the basis for the claim occurred as stated. Rent Arrears
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed.
Mr Hancox stated that he has the money in his account to pay the rent arrears but he was not going to make any such payment until the outcome of the proceedings were known as he wouldn’t want to be making a payment if he couldn’t live in the house. KO stated that there had been a previous conditional order in November 2023 and they didn’t wish to have a further conditional termination.
The grounds for termination have therefore been made out and on that basis alone the tenancy is terminated. While Mr Hancox stated he is able to pay the arrears no such payment has been made. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Breach of tenant obligations
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
Kainga Ora claim Mr Hancox has breached his tenancy agreement and tenant responsibilities under Sec 40(2)(c) of the RTA which states that he shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants.
In addition Section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) relevantly provides: (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, 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
Mr Hancox was aware of the hearing yesterday and the Notice of Hearing and associated information was served by post, email, and SMS and he was aware of the version of events outlined by two statements provided to the Tribunal by Mr L and Ms D. It was indicated to Mr Hancox in the hearing that Mr L and Ms D were being called as witnesses by KO. Mr Hancox strongly objected to that saying his bail conditions, as a result of charges laid against him following the events outlined below, prevent him from talking to anyone to do with the case including these witnesses and if he did so he may end up in jail. He also said if he had known he could have bought 3 witnesses of his own. The information provided with the hearing notice does state a party may bring witnesses. Mr Hancox also said this will all be sorted out once he has his hearing on the criminal charges late in January which will show he was not guilty of any assault. He didn’t believe this hearing should be happening as it was all going to be dealt with at Court and was disparaging of the Tribunal process.
The District Court has confirmed that Tribunal should proceed to hear an application even when a matter is pending in the criminal court and cannot make the decision conditional on the outcome of criminal proceedings. Clarke v Housing New Zealand Corporation (CIV-2008-006-000033)
Mr Hancox was given the opportunity to remain in the hearing to hear from the witnesses but he chose to leave and the hearing proceeded in his absence. Prior to that Mr Hancox did however give his version of the events which I will set out below. Evidence from Mr L and Ms D
In support the application two statements were provided to the Tribunal, one from the neighour at 6 Betty Street, Mr L, and one from a friend Ms D, who while not living in the same street, lives nearby, can be regarded as a neighbour and is also a tenant of KO.
The summary of the events as presented by Mr L and Ms D in their written statements is as follows: On 22 October 2024 a dispute arose between Mr Hancox’s daughter, and the neighbour at 6 Betty Place. The properties share a boundary fence. The daughter and the neighbour, Mr L, were arguing about which of their dogs had dug a hole under the adjoining fence. Mr L had returned home to find Mr Hancox’s dog in his garden. Because Mr L was recovering from a broken collar bone, he sought the assistance of Ms D a friend and nearby neighbour, to block the hole under the fence to stop the dog from getting through. While Mr L and Ms D were repairing the fence a further discussion took place between Mr L and Mr Hancox’s daughter. The daughter’s boyfriend was also present and contributed to the discussion. A while later, Mr L and Ms D alerted the daughter that her dog was trying to dig through the fence. At this point the daughter became abusive and called Ms D a ‘fat c**t’ and said that because she had no teeth, she must be a meth smoker. Mr Hancox was not at home during these discussions but arrived after this, and knocked on Mr L’s door. When he opened the door Mr Hancox appeared to be shaking with rage and accused him of abusing his daughter. Mr L said that Mr Hancox then ‘laid into him’ throwing multiple punches. Ms D walked toward them to intervene and try and settle things , and Mr Hancox pushed her from behind and she fell off the porch and heavily onto the concrete. Mr L responded by pushing Mr Hancox at which point Mr Hancox, his daughter and her boyfriend assaulted Mr L. The Police were called and arrived on the scene. The Police Sergeant noted that Ms D was still on the ground at 6 Betty Street when they got there and couldn’t move. An ambulance was called to assist her. Mr Hancox left the scene in his car but was later located and arrested by Police. He appeared in court, has been charged with assault, and was bailed to another address. Although bailed to another address Mr Hancox’s neighbours report feeling anxious, traumatised and fearful of his return.
Mr L and Ms D confirmed in the hearing that their statements are a true version of the events.
Mr Hancox strongly disputed the above version of events. He said that two drunk people came to his door at no.7 Betty Place and tried to push their way in and the drunk boyfriend pushed him down the steps. In the process of being pushed he was pushed into the drunk woman and that is what caused her to fall.
I put this version of events to Mr L and Ms D at the hearing. They strongly disagreed saying the events took place at Mr L’s property not Mr Hancox’s and that no one there had been drinking, neither them nor Mr Hancox. I conclude that it is more likely than not that the version of events presented by Mr L and Ms D is the correct one, rather than Mr Hancox’s version that the event took place at 7 Betty Place and this is reinforced that Ms D wa son the ground at 6 Betty Place not 7 Betty Place. Finding
I have carefully considered the evidence presented by Mr Hancox as to his version of the events and the detailed statements provided by Mr L and Ms D. I conclude that it is more likely than not that the version of events presented by Mr L and Ms D is the correct one, rather than Mr Hancox’s version and that he did assault both Mr L and Ms D at 6 Betty Place not 7 Betty Place.
Mr Hancox has therefore caused interference with the reasonable peace and comfort of both Mr L and Ms D and his actions in assaulting both of them continue to have a significant impact on their wellbeing, both mental and physical.
This is a breach that is not capable of remedy and it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy given the seriousness of this breach. Conclusion
KO applied to terminate the tenancy on two separate grounds and I have found that each of those grounds has been established and each of those grounds justify immediate termination of the tenancy on their own.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5076149 — net $8,955.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13/12/2024	$8,955.85	Rent arrears to 13/12/2024
Net award	$8,955.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,955.85

Order

The tenancy of Paul James Hancox at 7 Betty Place, Aranui, Christchurch 8061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes immediately.
Paul James Hancox must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $8955.85 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing conducted remotely. Ms Thompson-Wise represented Kainga Ora (‘KO”). Later in the hearing Mr L and Ms D attended to give evidence supported by their Housing Support Manager.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on two grounds. The first is on the basis rent arrears and the second is on the basis of the breach by the tenant of their obligations.
To find the claim established the Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that is, it is more likely than not, that the events which gave the basis for the claim occurred as stated. Rent Arrears
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed.
Mr Hancox stated that he has the money in his account to pay the rent arrears but he was not going to make any such payment until the outcome of the proceedings were known as he wouldn’t want to be making a payment if he couldn’t live in the house. KO stated that there had been a previous conditional order in November 2023 and they didn’t wish to have a further conditional termination.
The grounds for termination have therefore been made out and on that basis alone the tenancy is terminated. While Mr Hancox stated he is able to pay the arrears no such payment has been made. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Breach of tenant obligations
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
Kainga Ora claim Mr Hancox has breached his tenancy agreement and tenant responsibilities under Sec 40(2)(c) of the RTA which states that he shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants.
In addition Section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) relevantly provides: (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, 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
Mr Hancox was aware of the hearing yesterday and the Notice of Hearing and associated information was served by post, email, and SMS and he was aware of the version of events outlined by two statements provided to the Tribunal by Mr L and Ms D. It was indicated to Mr Hancox in the hearing that Mr L and Ms D were being called as witnesses by KO. Mr Hancox strongly objected to that saying his bail conditions, as a result of charges laid against him following the events outlined below, prevent him from talking to anyone to do with the case including these witnesses and if he did so he may end up in jail. He also said if he had known he could have bought 3 witnesses of his own. The information provided with the hearing notice does state a party may bring witnesses. Mr Hancox also said this will all be sorted out once he has his hearing on the criminal charges late in January which will show he was not guilty of any assault. He didn’t believe this hearing should be happening as it was all going to be dealt with at Court and was disparaging of the Tribunal process.
The District Court has confirmed that Tribunal should proceed to hear an application even when a matter is pending in the criminal court and cannot make the decision conditional on the outcome of criminal proceedings. Clarke v Housing New Zealand Corporation (CIV-2008-006-000033)
Mr Hancox was given the opportunity to remain in the hearing to hear from the witnesses but he chose to leave and the hearing proceeded in his absence. Prior to that Mr Hancox did however give his version of the events which I will set out below. Evidence from Mr L and Ms D
In support the application two statements were provided to the Tribunal, one from the neighour at 6 Betty Street, Mr L, and one from a friend Ms D, who while not living in the same street, lives nearby, can be regarded as a neighbour and is also a tenant of KO.
The summary of the events as presented by Mr L and Ms D in their written statements is as follows: On 22 October 2024 a dispute arose between Mr Hancox’s daughter, and the neighbour at 6 Betty Place. The properties share a boundary fence. The daughter and the neighbour, Mr L, were arguing about which of their dogs had dug a hole under the adjoining fence. Mr L had returned home to find Mr Hancox’s dog in his garden. Because Mr L was recovering from a broken collar bone, he sought the assistance of Ms D a friend and nearby neighbour, to block the hole under the fence to stop the dog from getting through. While Mr L and Ms D were repairing the fence a further discussion took place between Mr L and Mr Hancox’s daughter. The daughter’s boyfriend was also present and contributed to the discussion. A while later, Mr L and Ms D alerted the daughter that her dog was trying to dig through the fence. At this point the daughter became abusive and called Ms D a ‘fat c**t’ and said that because she had no teeth, she must be a meth smoker. Mr Hancox was not at home during these discussions but arrived after this, and knocked on Mr L’s door. When he opened the door Mr Hancox appeared to be shaking with rage and accused him of abusing his daughter. Mr L said that Mr Hancox then ‘laid into him’ throwing multiple punches. Ms D walked toward them to intervene and try and settle things , and Mr Hancox pushed her from behind and she fell off the porch and heavily onto the concrete. Mr L responded by pushing Mr Hancox at which point Mr Hancox, his daughter and her boyfriend assaulted Mr L. The Police were called and arrived on the scene. The Police Sergeant noted that Ms D was still on the ground at 6 Betty Street when they got there and couldn’t move. An ambulance was called to assist her. Mr Hancox left the scene in his car but was later located and arrested by Police. He appeared in court, has been charged with assault, and was bailed to another address. Although bailed to another address Mr Hancox’s neighbours report feeling anxious, traumatised and fearful of his return.
Mr L and Ms D confirmed in the hearing that their statements are a true version of the events.
Mr Hancox strongly disputed the above version of events. He said that two drunk people came to his door at no.7 Betty Place and tried to push their way in and the drunk boyfriend pushed him down the steps. In the process of being pushed he was pushed into the drunk woman and that is what caused her to fall.
I put this version of events to Mr L and Ms D at the hearing. They strongly disagreed saying the events took place at Mr L’s property not Mr Hancox’s and that no one there had been drinking, neither them nor Mr Hancox. I conclude that it is more likely than not that the version of events presented by Mr L and Ms D is the correct one, rather than Mr Hancox’s version that the event took place at 7 Betty Place and this is reinforced that Ms D wa son the ground at 6 Betty Place not 7 Betty Place. Finding
I have carefully considered the evidence presented by Mr Hancox as to his version of the events and the detailed statements provided by Mr L and Ms D. I conclude that it is more likely than not that the version of events presented by Mr L and Ms D is the correct one, rather than Mr Hancox’s version and that he did assault both Mr L and Ms D at 6 Betty Place not 7 Betty Place.
Mr Hancox has therefore caused interference with the reasonable peace and comfort of both Mr L and Ms D and his actions in assaulting both of them continue to have a significant impact on their wellbeing, both mental and physical.
This is a breach that is not capable of remedy and it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy given the seriousness of this breach. Conclusion
KO applied to terminate the tenancy on two separate grounds and I have found that each of those grounds has been established and each of those grounds justify immediate termination of the tenancy on their own.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5076149 — Rent arrears at 7 Betty Place, Aranui, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5076149 — Rent arrears at 7 Betty Place, Aranui, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions