What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5121168 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 5121168?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5121168?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5121168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11337337-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5121168 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 5121168?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5121168?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5121168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11337337-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 605, 140 Hobson Street, Auckland CBD, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5121168 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Jackson Mohi at Unit/Flat 605, 140 Hobson Street, Auckland CBD, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $356.00 (6500897-009) to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
I noted a concern that as the tenant in in prison: a. he may not be aware of this hearing; and b. the Tribunal has no means of contacting him to join the teleconference.
The landlord’s evidence is that on 15 January 2025, after Notice of today’s hearing had been issued, a videoconference involving the landlord, the tenant and the tenant’s key worker was held, during which the tenant was informed of the hearing, giving him the opportunity to make arrangements to participate or be represented if he wished to.
I note too, that although it is not required to do so (see. s. 55(3) RTA) the landlord gave the tenant notice on 23 December 2024 that it would be making an immediate application to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy and notifying the tenant that he had the right to apply to the Tribunal to challenge the notice.
In those circumstances I consider it fair to proceed with the hearing without further service on the tenant (see s.91B(2)(c))

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal is required to terminate a tenancy if satisfied that: “....the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault or to threatened to assault.....any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part...or....any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part” (s.55(1)(c))
The notice given to the tenant by the landlord alleges that: “On 19/12/2024 at approximately 4:15am you along with your visitor gained access to level 7 of Home Ground apartments through another tenant of level 7 and knocked on room 706. After a few attempts you and your visitor gained access to apartment 706 and then after a few minutes you and your visitor left. The tenant of apartment 706 came out with a blood on their face and were attended by staff on the ground floor. Police attended, police file 24121/8811.”
Evidence provided by the landlord from Victim Support satisfies me that the tenant come along with his visitor, were charged with wounding with intent to injure in respect of that incident. The were both remanded in custody. At an appearance on 14 January 2025, the tenant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge of wounding with intent. The tenant has been remanded in custody pending a next hearing on 21 May 2025.
The Tenancy Tribunal exercises a civil jurisdiction, meaning that the landlord is required to produce evidence to prove its allegations on the balance of probabilities (ie. more likely than not), not beyond reasonable doubt as is required in the criminal jurisdiction.
The evidence provided and the District Court’s decision to remand the tenant in custody, satisfy me that it is more likely than not that the tenant breached the provisions of section 55(1)(c).
The tenancy is accordingly terminated. Bond
The landlord has provided evidence which shows that there are graffiti marks in the premises that will need to be removed. Rent arrears have continued to accrue while the tenant has been in custody.
The evidence satisfies me that the cost of removing the graffiti and the rent arrears, exceed the amount of the bond held. The landlord’s position is that it will be satisfied with receiving the tenant’s bond as compensation for any claims it may have against the tenant for damages or unpaid rent. That seems to me a pragmatic approach. The bond should accordingly be refunded to the landlord.
Finally, the landlord has provided an assurance that it will make sure the tenant receives a copy of this order immediately.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Jackson Mohi at Unit/Flat 605, 140 Hobson Street, Auckland CBD, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $356.00 (6500897-009) to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
I noted a concern that as the tenant in in prison: a. he may not be aware of this hearing; and b. the Tribunal has no means of contacting him to join the teleconference.
The landlord’s evidence is that on 15 January 2025, after Notice of today’s hearing had been issued, a videoconference involving the landlord, the tenant and the tenant’s key worker was held, during which the tenant was informed of the hearing, giving him the opportunity to make arrangements to participate or be represented if he wished to.
I note too, that although it is not required to do so (see. s. 55(3) RTA) the landlord gave the tenant notice on 23 December 2024 that it would be making an immediate application to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy and notifying the tenant that he had the right to apply to the Tribunal to challenge the notice.
In those circumstances I consider it fair to proceed with the hearing without further service on the tenant (see s.91B(2)(c))

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal is required to terminate a tenancy if satisfied that: “....the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault or to threatened to assault.....any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part...or....any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part” (s.55(1)(c))
The notice given to the tenant by the landlord alleges that: “On 19/12/2024 at approximately 4:15am you along with your visitor gained access to level 7 of Home Ground apartments through another tenant of level 7 and knocked on room 706. After a few attempts you and your visitor gained access to apartment 706 and then after a few minutes you and your visitor left. The tenant of apartment 706 came out with a blood on their face and were attended by staff on the ground floor. Police attended, police file 24121/8811.”
Evidence provided by the landlord from Victim Support satisfies me that the tenant come along with his visitor, were charged with wounding with intent to injure in respect of that incident. The were both remanded in custody. At an appearance on 14 January 2025, the tenant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge of wounding with intent. The tenant has been remanded in custody pending a next hearing on 21 May 2025.
The Tenancy Tribunal exercises a civil jurisdiction, meaning that the landlord is required to produce evidence to prove its allegations on the balance of probabilities (ie. more likely than not), not beyond reasonable doubt as is required in the criminal jurisdiction.
The evidence provided and the District Court’s decision to remand the tenant in custody, satisfy me that it is more likely than not that the tenant breached the provisions of section 55(1)(c).
The tenancy is accordingly terminated. Bond
The landlord has provided evidence which shows that there are graffiti marks in the premises that will need to be removed. Rent arrears have continued to accrue while the tenant has been in custody.
The evidence satisfies me that the cost of removing the graffiti and the rent arrears, exceed the amount of the bond held. The landlord’s position is that it will be satisfied with receiving the tenant’s bond as compensation for any claims it may have against the tenant for damages or unpaid rent. That seems to me a pragmatic approach. The bond should accordingly be refunded to the landlord.
Finally, the landlord has provided an assurance that it will make sure the tenant receives a copy of this order immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5121168 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 605, 140 Hobson Street, Auckland CBD, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5121168 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 605, 140 Hobson Street, Auckland CBD, Auckland

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