What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5113869 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 6 Meachen Crescent, Blenheim,

How much money was awarded in case 5113869?

Rent Arrears: $700.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5113869?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5113869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11280678-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5113869 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 6 Meachen Crescent, Blenheim,

How much money was awarded in case 5113869?

Rent Arrears: $700.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5113869?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5113869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11280678-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Meachen Crescent, Blenheim, Blenheim 7201 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5113869 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5113869 — net $700.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8/1/2025	$700.71	Rent arrears to 8/1/2025
Net award	$700.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$700.71

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 6 Meachen Crescent, Blenheim, Blenheim 7201 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $700.71 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The hearing of this application was due to take place at 10am on 8 January 2025 but due to unforeseen circumstances did not proceed. The parties were given alternative times on that day for the hearing to be rescheduled but these did not suit the tenant so the matter was adjourned to 10am on 9 January 2025. The Tribunal received no communication from the tenant that this was not a suitable time.
The hearing was conducted by phone. Ms Thompson-Wise represented Kainga Ora (‘KO’). Two attempts were made to contact the tenant on the number provided and on both occasions the call went to answer phone. The hearing proceeded in his absence.
KO seek to terminate the tenancy on 2 grounds; •The rent was more than 21 days in arrears at date of application and ; •That the tenant has breached his obligations and rely on Section 55(1)(c)(v), namely that on 3 December 2024, the neighbour, an occupant of the adjacent property, was assaulted by both the tenant and a family member present at the tenant’s address with the tenant’s permission. Termination for rent arrears
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. 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. Termination for breach of obligations The Law
The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for assault. It states: Section 55 (1)Subject to subsection (2) of this act, 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 caused, 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 constitutes a part. ... (2)The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) of this section if, but only if, it s 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 [(but see also section 78A(3)(b))].
Assault is defined in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 as: [T]he 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 has the present ability to effect his purpose.
In the case of Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court Christchurch, CIV- 2004 – 409 – 717, 2 July 2004, his Honour Judge Keane accepted that an assault, or threat of assault, once made could not be remedied. His Honour however, formed the view that the discretion under section 55(2) RTA remained, regardless of whether the breach was capable of remedy or not. The High Court held that if the breach could not be remedied, then the issue could be set aside and the Tribunal go on to consider the two remaining factors under section 55(2), namely whether the landlord had been compensated for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely that the tenant would commit any further breach of the same kind.
Section 41 RTA states the tenant is responsible for anything done by any person who is at the property with the tenant’s permission if the act would have constituted a breach of the Act or agreement. Landlord’s submissions
The tenancy commenced on 11 April 2023. The premises comprise a one bedroomed unit in a cul-de-sac of 13 homes, 9 of which are owned and tenanted by KO. MG, the victim of the assault, resides next to the tenant’s premises and lives with his mother, G.
On 4 December 2024 Kāinga Ora received an email from a community nurse advising that MG, was in hospital as a result of a serious assault. He suffered fracture of his facial bones, which require reconstruction, a punctured lung and concussion. He had been trying to defend a female who was being assaulted at Mr Dalton’s address.
On 5 December, the Housing Support Manager for KO, met with Mr Dalton. Mr Dalton confirmed that he had punched MG in the head when he tried to intervene in an altercation between Mr Dalton’s brother and his partner. The blow to the head knocked MG to the ground. Mr Dalton reports that whilst MG was lying on the ground, this brother repeatedly kicked MG and stated that MG should have kept his nose out of their business.
G was not a witness to the assault, but provided a statement to KO about the aftermath for her son and reported that the following day she was at home with her daughter and son-in-law when Mr Dalton came out swinging a golf club and asking her son-in-law if he wanted a fight, coming up to him. He explained they were just there to check on their mother and Mr Dalton left.
KO advised there were other independent witnesses to the assault who have provided information anonymously and corroborated the story as told by Mr Dalton to KO. They were however fearful of retribution so were unwilling to provide statements or give evidence .
MG has been traumatised by these events and cannot return to his home although he hopes to be able to do that in the future. He was not in a condition to give evidence. G also is fearful for her safety and is under considerable stress because of these events. Findings
Based on the evidence presented by KO, and Mr Dalton’s own statements to KO, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Dalton did assault MG by hitting him in the head causing him to fall to the ground and that another person, namely his brother on the premises with his permission, carried on the assault by kicking him while he was on the ground. There is no need for me to establish whether the injuries MG sustained were caused by Mr Dalton or his brother. All I am required to do is to find on the balance of probabilities that the assault on MG was caused by the tenant or by someone at the premises with his permission. I am satisfied on both these counts. There is no evidence that Mr Dalton tried to intervene to mitigate the effects of the ongoing assault on MG by his brother.
The next issue I must determine is whether this is an appropriate case to exercise my jurisdiction not to terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The breach is not capable of remedy and the landlord is not able to be financially compensated. Therefore, the only remaining factor I must consider is whether it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.
There is no evidence in front of me that would support a conclusion that the tenant is unlikely to commit a further breach of this kind. The factors that weigh with me in reaching this conclusion are the vicious nature of the unprovoked assault, the view of Mr Dalton that the neighbours should mind their own business and his lack of any action in intervening to stop or mitigate the assault that was carried on by his brother following Mr Dalton hitting MG in the head.
The landlord has proven their claim under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA and I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under section 55(2). The tenancy is terminated. Termination under two grounds
It should be noted that Mr Dalton’s tenancy has been terminated under two separate stand-alone grounds, that is, termination for rent arears and termination for breach of a tenant’s obligations- assault. Suppression
KO sought name suppression on behalf of the tenant so as not to jeopardise their ability to find further housing. They believed the privacy of the tenant outweighed the public interest and would have supported such application made by the tenant.
Section 95A RTA provides; (1) The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. ... (4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
Mr Dalton has not made an application for name suppression and has not been successful so would not be granted name suppression under s.95(A)(1).
I have considered the application from KO on Mr Dalton’s behalf and find that given the nature of the claim that has been established that on this occasion the public interest outweighs the privacy of the tenant and suppression is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5113869 — net $700.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8/1/2025	$700.71	Rent arrears to 8/1/2025
Net award	$700.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$700.71

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 6 Meachen Crescent, Blenheim, Blenheim 7201 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $700.71 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The hearing of this application was due to take place at 10am on 8 January 2025 but due to unforeseen circumstances did not proceed. The parties were given alternative times on that day for the hearing to be rescheduled but these did not suit the tenant so the matter was adjourned to 10am on 9 January 2025. The Tribunal received no communication from the tenant that this was not a suitable time.
The hearing was conducted by phone. Ms Thompson-Wise represented Kainga Ora (‘KO’). Two attempts were made to contact the tenant on the number provided and on both occasions the call went to answer phone. The hearing proceeded in his absence.
KO seek to terminate the tenancy on 2 grounds; •The rent was more than 21 days in arrears at date of application and ; •That the tenant has breached his obligations and rely on Section 55(1)(c)(v), namely that on 3 December 2024, the neighbour, an occupant of the adjacent property, was assaulted by both the tenant and a family member present at the tenant’s address with the tenant’s permission. Termination for rent arrears
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. 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. Termination for breach of obligations The Law
The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for assault. It states: Section 55 (1)Subject to subsection (2) of this act, 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 caused, 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 constitutes a part. ... (2)The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) of this section if, but only if, it s 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 [(but see also section 78A(3)(b))].
Assault is defined in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 as: [T]he 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 has the present ability to effect his purpose.
In the case of Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court Christchurch, CIV- 2004 – 409 – 717, 2 July 2004, his Honour Judge Keane accepted that an assault, or threat of assault, once made could not be remedied. His Honour however, formed the view that the discretion under section 55(2) RTA remained, regardless of whether the breach was capable of remedy or not. The High Court held that if the breach could not be remedied, then the issue could be set aside and the Tribunal go on to consider the two remaining factors under section 55(2), namely whether the landlord had been compensated for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely that the tenant would commit any further breach of the same kind.
Section 41 RTA states the tenant is responsible for anything done by any person who is at the property with the tenant’s permission if the act would have constituted a breach of the Act or agreement. Landlord’s submissions
The tenancy commenced on 11 April 2023. The premises comprise a one bedroomed unit in a cul-de-sac of 13 homes, 9 of which are owned and tenanted by KO. MG, the victim of the assault, resides next to the tenant’s premises and lives with his mother, G.
On 4 December 2024 Kāinga Ora received an email from a community nurse advising that MG, was in hospital as a result of a serious assault. He suffered fracture of his facial bones, which require reconstruction, a punctured lung and concussion. He had been trying to defend a female who was being assaulted at Mr Dalton’s address.
On 5 December, the Housing Support Manager for KO, met with Mr Dalton. Mr Dalton confirmed that he had punched MG in the head when he tried to intervene in an altercation between Mr Dalton’s brother and his partner. The blow to the head knocked MG to the ground. Mr Dalton reports that whilst MG was lying on the ground, this brother repeatedly kicked MG and stated that MG should have kept his nose out of their business.
G was not a witness to the assault, but provided a statement to KO about the aftermath for her son and reported that the following day she was at home with her daughter and son-in-law when Mr Dalton came out swinging a golf club and asking her son-in-law if he wanted a fight, coming up to him. He explained they were just there to check on their mother and Mr Dalton left.
KO advised there were other independent witnesses to the assault who have provided information anonymously and corroborated the story as told by Mr Dalton to KO. They were however fearful of retribution so were unwilling to provide statements or give evidence .
MG has been traumatised by these events and cannot return to his home although he hopes to be able to do that in the future. He was not in a condition to give evidence. G also is fearful for her safety and is under considerable stress because of these events. Findings
Based on the evidence presented by KO, and Mr Dalton’s own statements to KO, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Dalton did assault MG by hitting him in the head causing him to fall to the ground and that another person, namely his brother on the premises with his permission, carried on the assault by kicking him while he was on the ground. There is no need for me to establish whether the injuries MG sustained were caused by Mr Dalton or his brother. All I am required to do is to find on the balance of probabilities that the assault on MG was caused by the tenant or by someone at the premises with his permission. I am satisfied on both these counts. There is no evidence that Mr Dalton tried to intervene to mitigate the effects of the ongoing assault on MG by his brother.
The next issue I must determine is whether this is an appropriate case to exercise my jurisdiction not to terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The breach is not capable of remedy and the landlord is not able to be financially compensated. Therefore, the only remaining factor I must consider is whether it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.
There is no evidence in front of me that would support a conclusion that the tenant is unlikely to commit a further breach of this kind. The factors that weigh with me in reaching this conclusion are the vicious nature of the unprovoked assault, the view of Mr Dalton that the neighbours should mind their own business and his lack of any action in intervening to stop or mitigate the assault that was carried on by his brother following Mr Dalton hitting MG in the head.
The landlord has proven their claim under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA and I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under section 55(2). The tenancy is terminated. Termination under two grounds
It should be noted that Mr Dalton’s tenancy has been terminated under two separate stand-alone grounds, that is, termination for rent arears and termination for breach of a tenant’s obligations- assault. Suppression
KO sought name suppression on behalf of the tenant so as not to jeopardise their ability to find further housing. They believed the privacy of the tenant outweighed the public interest and would have supported such application made by the tenant.
Section 95A RTA provides; (1) The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. ... (4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
Mr Dalton has not made an application for name suppression and has not been successful so would not be granted name suppression under s.95(A)(1).
I have considered the application from KO on Mr Dalton’s behalf and find that given the nature of the claim that has been established that on this occasion the public interest outweighs the privacy of the tenant and suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5113869 — Rent arrears at 6 Meachen Crescent, Blenheim, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5113869 — Rent arrears at 6 Meachen Crescent, Blenheim, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions