What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5079469 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5079469?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5079469?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5079469?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11170434-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5079469 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5079469?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5079469?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5079469?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11170434-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5079469 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. Any identifying details, including addresses, of the witnesses should also be supressed
The tenancy of Anthony Hone at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately. Anthony Hone 3.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenant was unable to be contacted on the number specified in the Notice of Hearing
The landlord has applied for immediate termination of the tenancy under s.55(1)(c) which requires that: “(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— 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........(iv) any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part... (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.” The Evidence
The premises is one of multiple flats in a complex managed by the landlord. The tenancy began on 31 July 2024.
The landlord has provided evidence in the form of signed statements from five other residents at the complex. Three of those residents appeared by phone to speak to their statements.
In essence, the landlord’s evidence is that around 10:30pm on the evening of Tuesday, 19 November 2024 the tenant visited [witness 1] at Unit 5. [Witness 1] had previously heard the tenant yelling and swearing out on the street leading to the other units in the complex. The tenant was described as very abusive and waving his arms around.
[Witness 1] answered a knock at the door to find the tenant there. The tenant shoved the door open and barged his way in, knocking [witness 1] down onto his couch. The tenant was described as being incoherent and not saying anything in reply to [witness 1].
Later that evening the tenant went to Unit 30 occupied by [witness 2], a young woman recently arrived in New Zealand. He knocked on the door then left when it was not answered.
The tenant then went next door to Unit 31. The evidence of that resident, [witness 3], describes the tenant bashing on his door calling him a gangster. [Witness 3] let the tenant in. The tenant abused and threatened [witness 3]. The tenant left but came back again around 11:30pm. [Witness 4] says again there were lots of threats, including words like “smashing me and getting me.”
The tenant then left and went back next door to Unit 30, banging on the door and trying to gain entry. [Witness 2]’s evidence is that the tenant threatened that he would hit her if she didn't let him in. [Witness 2] phoned another resident [witness 5], who called the police then went over to [witness 2]’s unit, by which time the tenant had left. [Witness 2] has provided some video footage recording the tenant’s attempts to gain entry and her distress.
The next morning the tenant returned to Unit 31. When [witness 3] opened the door he noticed a large knife on the doorstep which the tenant acknowledged was his and said he wanted it back. [Witness 1] threw it some distance away.
[Witness 5] went over to [witness 3]’s unit and describes the tenant being inside with [witness 3] trying to keep him calm. The tenant was accusing [witness 3] of ringing the police. [Witness 5] said that it was actually him who had called the police. [Witness 5] describes the tenant calling him a “narc” and threatened that he would get the mongrel mob and rogues gang members to get him. [Witness 3] pointed out to [witness 5] the knife that was on the ground which [witness 5] took it away and hid.
The landlord's understanding is that the tenant was arrested but then bailed to the premises. He was soon after arrested again and has been remanded in custody, although that may be as a result of other charges in addition to those arising out of the events described above.
The witnesses all described the tenant as “Caesar” which was how he was known. They were all however able to confirm him as the resident at Unit 61. Analysis
The evidence provided is consistent. The witnesses describe being surprised at the tenant’s behaviour during those events, saying that there have been no problems with him previously. That may explain the willingness of [witness 1] and [witness 3] to answer the door to him and let him in
Nevertheless, there is clear and corroborated evidence of the tenant having threatened to harm those other residents, directly and through associates. The evidence is clear about how justifiably terrified [witness 2] was by the tenant’s actions.
For facts to be regarded as proved in Tribunal proceedings, they must be proved on the balance of probabilities rather than the beyond reasonable doubt standard applied in the criminal jurisdiction. Nevertheless, where serious allegations such as these are made, there needs to be a solid evidential foundation.
The evidence provided satisfies me that the tenant did threaten to assault other residents in the complex. The requirements of section 55(1)(c) are met.
That provision requires the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy unless s.55(2) applies. Section 55(2) allows the Tribunal discretion to refuse to make a termination order, if satisfied the breach has been remedied (where capable of remedy) and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach. The tenant’s breaches are not capable of remedy. While acknowledging the evidence that the tenant’s behaviour was out of character, so far as the witnesses were aware, there is no evidential basis for a finding that the behaviour would not likely be repeated if the tenancy continued.
For completeness, I note that the tenant’s conduct breached his obligation under s.40(2)(c) not to, “...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...”
Again, the nature, extent and effect of the tenant’s breaches of that obligation, are such that I would regard them as incapable of remedy. I would consider it inequitable to make an order terminating the tenancy under s.56(1).
For those reasons termination of the tenancy is ordered.
Because [The landlord/s] has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. Any identifying details, including addresses, of the witnesses should also be supressed
The tenancy of Anthony Hone at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately. Anthony Hone 3.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenant was unable to be contacted on the number specified in the Notice of Hearing
The landlord has applied for immediate termination of the tenancy under s.55(1)(c) which requires that: “(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— 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........(iv) any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part... (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.” The Evidence
The premises is one of multiple flats in a complex managed by the landlord. The tenancy began on 31 July 2024.
The landlord has provided evidence in the form of signed statements from five other residents at the complex. Three of those residents appeared by phone to speak to their statements.
In essence, the landlord’s evidence is that around 10:30pm on the evening of Tuesday, 19 November 2024 the tenant visited [witness 1] at Unit 5. [Witness 1] had previously heard the tenant yelling and swearing out on the street leading to the other units in the complex. The tenant was described as very abusive and waving his arms around.
[Witness 1] answered a knock at the door to find the tenant there. The tenant shoved the door open and barged his way in, knocking [witness 1] down onto his couch. The tenant was described as being incoherent and not saying anything in reply to [witness 1].
Later that evening the tenant went to Unit 30 occupied by [witness 2], a young woman recently arrived in New Zealand. He knocked on the door then left when it was not answered.
The tenant then went next door to Unit 31. The evidence of that resident, [witness 3], describes the tenant bashing on his door calling him a gangster. [Witness 3] let the tenant in. The tenant abused and threatened [witness 3]. The tenant left but came back again around 11:30pm. [Witness 4] says again there were lots of threats, including words like “smashing me and getting me.”
The tenant then left and went back next door to Unit 30, banging on the door and trying to gain entry. [Witness 2]’s evidence is that the tenant threatened that he would hit her if she didn't let him in. [Witness 2] phoned another resident [witness 5], who called the police then went over to [witness 2]’s unit, by which time the tenant had left. [Witness 2] has provided some video footage recording the tenant’s attempts to gain entry and her distress.
The next morning the tenant returned to Unit 31. When [witness 3] opened the door he noticed a large knife on the doorstep which the tenant acknowledged was his and said he wanted it back. [Witness 1] threw it some distance away.
[Witness 5] went over to [witness 3]’s unit and describes the tenant being inside with [witness 3] trying to keep him calm. The tenant was accusing [witness 3] of ringing the police. [Witness 5] said that it was actually him who had called the police. [Witness 5] describes the tenant calling him a “narc” and threatened that he would get the mongrel mob and rogues gang members to get him. [Witness 3] pointed out to [witness 5] the knife that was on the ground which [witness 5] took it away and hid.
The landlord's understanding is that the tenant was arrested but then bailed to the premises. He was soon after arrested again and has been remanded in custody, although that may be as a result of other charges in addition to those arising out of the events described above.
The witnesses all described the tenant as “Caesar” which was how he was known. They were all however able to confirm him as the resident at Unit 61. Analysis
The evidence provided is consistent. The witnesses describe being surprised at the tenant’s behaviour during those events, saying that there have been no problems with him previously. That may explain the willingness of [witness 1] and [witness 3] to answer the door to him and let him in
Nevertheless, there is clear and corroborated evidence of the tenant having threatened to harm those other residents, directly and through associates. The evidence is clear about how justifiably terrified [witness 2] was by the tenant’s actions.
For facts to be regarded as proved in Tribunal proceedings, they must be proved on the balance of probabilities rather than the beyond reasonable doubt standard applied in the criminal jurisdiction. Nevertheless, where serious allegations such as these are made, there needs to be a solid evidential foundation.
The evidence provided satisfies me that the tenant did threaten to assault other residents in the complex. The requirements of section 55(1)(c) are met.
That provision requires the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy unless s.55(2) applies. Section 55(2) allows the Tribunal discretion to refuse to make a termination order, if satisfied the breach has been remedied (where capable of remedy) and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach. The tenant’s breaches are not capable of remedy. While acknowledging the evidence that the tenant’s behaviour was out of character, so far as the witnesses were aware, there is no evidential basis for a finding that the behaviour would not likely be repeated if the tenancy continued.
For completeness, I note that the tenant’s conduct breached his obligation under s.40(2)(c) not to, “...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...”
Again, the nature, extent and effect of the tenant’s breaches of that obligation, are such that I would regard them as incapable of remedy. I would consider it inequitable to make an order terminating the tenancy under s.56(1).
For those reasons termination of the tenancy is ordered.
Because [The landlord/s] has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5079469 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5079469 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions