What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5084409?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Apai Te Whaiti at Room 1006, 40-44 Frederick Street, Te Aro,

How much money was awarded in case 5084409?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5084409?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5084409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11178268-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5084409?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Apai Te Whaiti at Room 1006, 40-44 Frederick Street, Te Aro,

How much money was awarded in case 5084409?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5084409?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5084409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11178268-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 1006, 40-44 Frederick Street, Te Aro, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5084409 — 14-day notice

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing via teleconference. The tenant was called twice on the number provided but the calls were not answered. The absence of a party does not prevent a matter from being heard and determined.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for assault, and breach of the tenant’s obligations.

This is a periodic tenancy which commenced on 13 February 2024.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

In accordance with section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it 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: (i) the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family: (ii) the owner of the premises or any member of the owner’s family: (iii) any agent of the landlord: (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.

Assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she has, present ability to effect his or her purpose.

The Tribunal may also 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 to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.

Section 40(2)(c) RTA provides that tenants must 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, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.

The applicant (landlord) is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

After hearing and considering all the evidence of an incident that occurred at the premises on 23 November, I find it more likely than not that the tenant has either assaulted or threatened to assault a security guard at the premises. I find that due to the serious nature of the breach the tenancy must be terminated. The tenant was arrested and subsequently charged for this offence.

I also find that the landlord has other sufficient grounds to terminate the tenancy as the evidence establishes that the tenant has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of his neighbours and staff at the premises. The tenant has displayed threatening and abusive behaviour towards staff, contractors, and other tenants, and has been served with an anti-social behaviour notice. The tenant has also brought guests into the complex who have urinated on a stairwell and who have been verbally aggressive with staff. Staff and other tenants have been left feeling unsafe and the landlord is concerned with the risk of ongoing behaviours.

The breaches are not capable of remedy because the effect on the other parties cannot be undone.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy in these circumstances.

Order

The tenancy of Apai Te Whaiti at Room 1006, 40-44 Frederick Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust, immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing via teleconference. The tenant was called twice on the number provided but the calls were not answered. The absence of a party does not prevent a matter from being heard and determined.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for assault, and breach of the tenant’s obligations.
This is a periodic tenancy which commenced on 13 February 2024.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

In accordance with section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it 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: (i) the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family: (ii) the owner of the premises or any member of the owner’s family: (iii) any agent of the landlord: (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.
Assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she has, present ability to effect his or her purpose.
The Tribunal may also 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 to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
Section 40(2)(c) RTA provides that tenants must 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, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
The applicant (landlord) is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
After hearing and considering all the evidence of an incident that occurred at the premises on 23 November, I find it more likely than not that the tenant has either assaulted or threatened to assault a security guard at the premises. I find that due to the serious nature of the breach the tenancy must be terminated. The tenant was arrested and subsequently charged for this offence.
I also find that the landlord has other sufficient grounds to terminate the tenancy as the evidence establishes that the tenant has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of his neighbours and staff at the premises. The tenant has displayed threatening and abusive behaviour towards staff, contractors, and other tenants, and has been served with an anti-social behaviour notice. The tenant has also brought guests into the complex who have urinated on a stairwell and who have been verbally aggressive with staff. Staff and other tenants have been left feeling unsafe and the landlord is concerned with the risk of ongoing behaviours.
The breaches are not capable of remedy because the effect on the other parties cannot be undone.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy in these circumstances.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5084409 — 14-day notice at Room 1006, 40-44 Frederick Street, Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5084409 — 14-day notice at Room 1006, 40-44 Frederick Street, Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions