What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5085994?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Geoffrey Neale Hayward at Unit/Flat Flat 8C, 1 Main South

How much money was awarded in case 5085994?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5085994?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5085994?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11202393-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5085994?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Geoffrey Neale Hayward at Unit/Flat Flat 8C, 1 Main South

How much money was awarded in case 5085994?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5085994?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5085994?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11202393-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 8C, 1 Main South Road, Upper Riccarton, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5085994 — Rent arrears

Order

The tenancy of Geoffrey Neale Hayward at Unit/Flat Flat 8C, 1 Main South Road, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, immediately.
Geoffrey Neale Hayward must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities $461.28 immediately, being rent arrears owed to 11 December 2024.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The tenant was served with Notice of the hearing at the tenancy address and also c/- Christchurch Men’s Prison. A statement from the police says he is likely to be remanded in custody there until at least 25 January 2025.
Th file indicates that Corrections were willing to facilitate the tenant’s participation in today’s hearing had he wished to attend, but no such arrangements have been made.
I am persuaded, on balance, that the tenant has been notified about today’s hearing and been provided with an opportunity to participate had he wished to.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that: a. the tenant has assaulted a neighbour (s.55(1)(c)(v); and b. in doing so, the tenant has breached his obligations 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, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.”; which c. is a breach incapable of remedy and it would be inequitable to refuse an order terminating the tenancy (s.56(1)(c)).
This is a serious allegation, with serious consequences if the tenancy is ended. The Tribunal exercises a civil jurisdiction, so the facts on which the claim is based must be proved on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not), unlike the criminal jurisdiction where proof is required beyond reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, with allegations such as these, there needs to be a solid evidential basis for finding the claims proved.
The landlord says that the tenant stabbed a neighbour (Mr H) who was also a tenant in the 42 unit complex managed by the landlord.
A signed statement given by Mr H on 5 November 2024 was provided in evidence. Mr H has since passed away so was unable to speak to his statement at today’s hearing.
That statement deposes that on 7 October 2024: a. after a dispute the tenant approached Mr H who in turn confronted him. Another neighbour interceded and grabbed Mr H who fell to the ground; b. the tenant left momentarily then returned and joined the scuffle. Mr H then crawled away to his property where he noticed blood coming from his leg and head; c. Mr H phoned an acquaintance, who called an ambulance. Mr H was taken to hospital and treated for a stab would to the leg and a gash to the head.
An anti-social behaviour notice was given to the tenant under s.55A RTA on 29 October 2024, alleging breach of the tenant’s obligations by assaulting a neighbour with a weapon on 7 October 2024. The notice provided the required advice that the tenant could challenge the Notice through the Tribunal. No such challenge appears to have been lodged.
The police statement says: “[The tenant] was arrested on 31/10/2024 Charged with: Wounding with intent to cause GBH Remanded in custody until: at least the 21 January 2025 NG Pleas entered at this stage.”
The landlord’s evidence persuades me that the incident that led to those police charges, is the same incident as described in Mr H’s statement.
I find it proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did assault Mr H as alleged.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Where the Tribunal is satisfied that a tenant has assaulted any neighbour of the premises, s.55(1)(c) requires that the tenancy be terminated.
Section 55(2) allows the Tribunal to make a conditional rather than final termination order, but only if satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy) that any loss has been compensated and that it is unlikely the tenant will commit any further, similar breach.
A breach of this nature is not capable of remedy. If it were, there is no evidential basis on which the Tribunal could find that a future breach was unlikely. The Tribunal must therefore make an order terminating the tenancy.
Under s.56, where a tenant has breached their obligations, as the tenant has here, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if, “...the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.”
Where a breach is capable of remedy, a notice to remedy must first be given but as I have already found, this was not a breach capable of remedy.
I find that particularly considering the potential risk and anxiety caused to the landlord’s other tenants in the complex if the tenancy continued, the tenant’s breach is of a nature and extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. The tenancy is also terminated on that ground. Rent
A rent summary provided by the landlord shows that a rent payment on 31 October 2024 paid the rent to 4 November 2024, with a small credit. No rent has been paid since.
I have considered whether section 61(3), which deals with abandoned premises, should apply to limit the tenant’s liability for rent to 28 days from the date the landlord became aware that the tenant had been remanded in custody.
I accept the landlord’s submission that in these circumstances, the landlord does not know whether or when a tenant intends to a return to the premises, so is not in a position to presume the premises to have been abandoned. The landlord has not made application for the tenancy to be terminated on that ground.
I find that the tenant is liable for rent for the period from 5 November 2024 to the termination date.

Order

The tenancy of Geoffrey Neale Hayward at Unit/Flat Flat 8C, 1 Main South Road, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, immediately.
Geoffrey Neale Hayward must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities $461.28 immediately, being rent arrears owed to 11 December 2024.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The tenant was served with Notice of the hearing at the tenancy address and also c/- Christchurch Men’s Prison. A statement from the police says he is likely to be remanded in custody there until at least 25 January 2025.
Th file indicates that Corrections were willing to facilitate the tenant’s participation in today’s hearing had he wished to attend, but no such arrangements have been made.
I am persuaded, on balance, that the tenant has been notified about today’s hearing and been provided with an opportunity to participate had he wished to.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that: a. the tenant has assaulted a neighbour (s.55(1)(c)(v); and b. in doing so, the tenant has breached his obligations 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, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.”; which c. is a breach incapable of remedy and it would be inequitable to refuse an order terminating the tenancy (s.56(1)(c)).
This is a serious allegation, with serious consequences if the tenancy is ended. The Tribunal exercises a civil jurisdiction, so the facts on which the claim is based must be proved on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not), unlike the criminal jurisdiction where proof is required beyond reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, with allegations such as these, there needs to be a solid evidential basis for finding the claims proved.
The landlord says that the tenant stabbed a neighbour (Mr H) who was also a tenant in the 42 unit complex managed by the landlord.
A signed statement given by Mr H on 5 November 2024 was provided in evidence. Mr H has since passed away so was unable to speak to his statement at today’s hearing.
That statement deposes that on 7 October 2024: a. after a dispute the tenant approached Mr H who in turn confronted him. Another neighbour interceded and grabbed Mr H who fell to the ground; b. the tenant left momentarily then returned and joined the scuffle. Mr H then crawled away to his property where he noticed blood coming from his leg and head; c. Mr H phoned an acquaintance, who called an ambulance. Mr H was taken to hospital and treated for a stab would to the leg and a gash to the head.
An anti-social behaviour notice was given to the tenant under s.55A RTA on 29 October 2024, alleging breach of the tenant’s obligations by assaulting a neighbour with a weapon on 7 October 2024. The notice provided the required advice that the tenant could challenge the Notice through the Tribunal. No such challenge appears to have been lodged.
The police statement says: “[The tenant] was arrested on 31/10/2024 Charged with: Wounding with intent to cause GBH Remanded in custody until: at least the 21 January 2025 NG Pleas entered at this stage.”
The landlord’s evidence persuades me that the incident that led to those police charges, is the same incident as described in Mr H’s statement.
I find it proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did assault Mr H as alleged.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Where the Tribunal is satisfied that a tenant has assaulted any neighbour of the premises, s.55(1)(c) requires that the tenancy be terminated.
Section 55(2) allows the Tribunal to make a conditional rather than final termination order, but only if satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy) that any loss has been compensated and that it is unlikely the tenant will commit any further, similar breach.
A breach of this nature is not capable of remedy. If it were, there is no evidential basis on which the Tribunal could find that a future breach was unlikely. The Tribunal must therefore make an order terminating the tenancy.
Under s.56, where a tenant has breached their obligations, as the tenant has here, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if, “...the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.”
Where a breach is capable of remedy, a notice to remedy must first be given but as I have already found, this was not a breach capable of remedy.
I find that particularly considering the potential risk and anxiety caused to the landlord’s other tenants in the complex if the tenancy continued, the tenant’s breach is of a nature and extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. The tenancy is also terminated on that ground. Rent
A rent summary provided by the landlord shows that a rent payment on 31 October 2024 paid the rent to 4 November 2024, with a small credit. No rent has been paid since.
I have considered whether section 61(3), which deals with abandoned premises, should apply to limit the tenant’s liability for rent to 28 days from the date the landlord became aware that the tenant had been remanded in custody.
I accept the landlord’s submission that in these circumstances, the landlord does not know whether or when a tenant intends to a return to the premises, so is not in a position to presume the premises to have been abandoned. The landlord has not made application for the tenancy to be terminated on that ground.
I find that the tenant is liable for rent for the period from 5 November 2024 to the termination date.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5085994 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 8C, 1 Main South Road, Upper Riccarton,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5085994 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 8C, 1 Main South Road, Upper Riccarton,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions