What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5148352 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 5148352?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5148352?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5148352?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12165275-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5148352 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 5148352?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5148352?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5148352?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12165275-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5148352 — Harassment

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference.
[The tenant/s] claim is that Kainga Ora breached its obligations to him by failing to protect his interests as their tenant.
In his submission, [The tenant/s] claim is put in the following terms: “This application relates to: a. The complete failure of [Kainga Ora] to provide me with any assistance and support when I was attacked by a mob of Middle Eastern people connected to my then neighbour, a Middle Eastern woman called...... b. The complete failure of [Kainga Ora] to provide wrap around services in assisting me to get the burglary and home invasion, that was perpetrated upon me by the same Middle Eastern woman and her mob after they attacked me, investigated by the police. c. The need to get an acknowledgment by Kainga Ora for the burglary. I would also like to get an understanding of KO's RTA responsibilities as a social housing landlord of some of our most vulnerable tenants to do more than nothing when we are attacked or burgled.”
The claim mostly arises out of an incident on 10 November 2024 when there was an altercation between [The tenant/s] and the occupant of a nearby apartment, also a Kainga Ora tenancy. The person involved was not the tenant herself but the mother of that tenant.
[The tenant/s] evidence is that after a verbal exchange, that person called on a mob of associates who came to the premises and threatened him. The police were called and [The tenant/s] was arrested. [The tenant/s] has been charged with assault, initially assault with a weapon (the door), now downgraded to common assault. He is defending the charges.
[The tenant/s] says that while he was in custody, the neighbouring tenant and/ or her associates broke into his apartment, smashing and stealing valuable property.
A police complaint was made concerning the burglary which was not pursued for lack of evidence. [The tenant/s] says that the lack of investigation is because it was the police themselves who were at fault for not securing his apartment when they arrested him, allowing the burglary to occur.
The tenant brought a complaint to the IPCA, which was not upheld.
Essentially, [The tenant/s] position is that Kainga Ora, despite its social housing and support obligations, has not supported him seeking redress for the burglary by occupants of another Kainga Ora tenancy, or in his dealings with the police. He says that Kainga Ora has been shown to be inept in managing the high and complex needs and behaviours of tenants such as his neighbours.
He says that when seeking assurances that there would be no repeat of the incident, he was victim blamed and not allowed to describe the incident in the terms preferred by him. The Tribunal’s Jurisdiction
As was discussed at the hearing, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is, “... to determine in accordance with [the Residential Tenancies Act] any dispute that—(a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.”
That jurisdiction does not extend to holding Kainga Ora to account for obligations it may have as a social housing provider under other legislation or policy requirements.
The relevant obligation owed by Kainga Ora to [The tenant/s] under the RTA is by s.45(1)(e) to: “......take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.”
Assessment of [The tenant/s]’s claims against that obligation, requires the Tribunal to consider the following questions: a. has there been an interference with [The tenant/s]’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy? b. was that interference caused or permitted by another of the landlord’s tenants? c. were there reasonable steps available to Kainga Ora to prevent that interference, that Kainga Ora ought to have taken? Assessment
I find it proved on the balance of probabilities that [The tenant/s]’s reasonable peace comfort or privacy was interfered with. That does not require me to apportion responsibility for the altercation between [The tenant/s] and the other protagonist.
It seems clear from the evidence that the altercation was one in which the other tenant’s family participated. A threat made against [The tenant/s] was acknowledged.
That interference was caused by the family of the other tenant, for whose actions that tenant was responsible (s.41 RTA).
The key issue here is whether Kainga Ora ought reasonably have done more to prevent that interference or to support [The tenant/s] afterward.
Prior to this incident, in early November 2024, [The tenant/s] had raised concerns about children at those neighbouring premises, causing noise and nuisance in the stairwells.
Kainga Ora investigated, approached the other tenant and noted [The tenant/s]’s concerns. It reported back to [The tenant/s] at that time who responded, “Just wanted to say thanks for responding to my concerns regarding [tenancy address suppressed] and the fact that she's now got her two preteen boys with her. I just wanted to reiterate that I would never want to interfere her right to have it was with her, I just questioned whether it was the right place for them.”
That communication does not corroborate [The tenant/s]’s claim that Kainga Ora did nothing about the concerns he had earlier raised in connection with the neighbouring apartment.
The evidence does not establish that there were warnings or indications about the incident on 10 November 2024 that Kainga Ora was or should have been aware of, that it would have been reasonable for Kainga Ora to act on to prevent the incident occurring.
Following that incident, Kainga Ora made the CCTV footage available to police to assist its investigation. When asked by [The tenant/s], Kainga Ora followed up with police about its investigation of [The tenant/s]’s burglary complaint. It was told, “It has been filed... it seems that he'd like his victims charged with burglary however police do not have evidential sufficiently to charge anyone.”
[The tenant/s] is concerned that the correspondence between Kainga Ora and at the police shows that instead of supporting him as their tenant, Kainga Ora simply accepted the police approach of blaming him for the incident.
On 15 November 2024 Kainga Ora issued the neighbouring tenant with an anti- social behaviour notice under s. 55A RTA saying: “On Sunday 10th November 2024 at approximately 8:30pm outside your unit in the communal hallway your mother was involved in a verbal altercation with your neighbour at [tenancy address suppressed]. You have admitted your sister verbally threatening your neighbour. We consider this behaviour to be anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy and it has caused distress. This is a breach of your agreement and the RTA it is important that this does not happen again.”
In terms of Kainga Ora’s responsibility around the incidents that occurred, to take the reasonable steps available to it: a. Kainga Ora should have investigated [The tenant/s]’s complaints about the boys running around causing disruption in the stairwells. It did so and [The tenant/s] acknowledged the response to his concerns; b. after becoming aware of the incident on 10 November 2024 it should have ensured the protagonists were put on notice that such behaviour is unacceptable and risked jeopardising their tenancy if it continued. It did so by issuing a s.55A notice; c. it should have assisted the police investigation of the incident and of [The tenant/s]’s burglary complaint. It did so.
I do not find it proved that there were other avenues reasonably available to Kainga Ora to prevent intrusion into [The tenant/s]’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.
It is not responsible for the conduct of tenants that it is not aware of or reasonably able to prevent.
In connection with the alleged crimes of assault, threatening behaviour and burglary, [The tenant/s] is correct that the level of proof required in civil disputes is lesser than that required for criminal prosecutions. Nevertheless in my view it is not reasonable to expect that Kainga Ora should undertake and act upon its own enquiries, independently of an ongoing police investigation/ prosecution.
For those for reasons I do not find a beach of Kainga Ora’s obligations under section 451(e) proved and the tenant’s claim is dismissed.
Although that claim was not pursued at the hearing, for completeness I note my finding that Kainga Ora is not therefore liable to compensate [The tenant/s] for the value of his stolen property.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference.
[The tenant/s] claim is that Kainga Ora breached its obligations to him by failing to protect his interests as their tenant.
In his submission, [The tenant/s] claim is put in the following terms: “This application relates to: a. The complete failure of [Kainga Ora] to provide me with any assistance and support when I was attacked by a mob of Middle Eastern people connected to my then neighbour, a Middle Eastern woman called...... b. The complete failure of [Kainga Ora] to provide wrap around services in assisting me to get the burglary and home invasion, that was perpetrated upon me by the same Middle Eastern woman and her mob after they attacked me, investigated by the police. c. The need to get an acknowledgment by Kainga Ora for the burglary. I would also like to get an understanding of KO's RTA responsibilities as a social housing landlord of some of our most vulnerable tenants to do more than nothing when we are attacked or burgled.”
The claim mostly arises out of an incident on 10 November 2024 when there was an altercation between [The tenant/s] and the occupant of a nearby apartment, also a Kainga Ora tenancy. The person involved was not the tenant herself but the mother of that tenant.
[The tenant/s] evidence is that after a verbal exchange, that person called on a mob of associates who came to the premises and threatened him. The police were called and [The tenant/s] was arrested. [The tenant/s] has been charged with assault, initially assault with a weapon (the door), now downgraded to common assault. He is defending the charges.
[The tenant/s] says that while he was in custody, the neighbouring tenant and/ or her associates broke into his apartment, smashing and stealing valuable property.
A police complaint was made concerning the burglary which was not pursued for lack of evidence. [The tenant/s] says that the lack of investigation is because it was the police themselves who were at fault for not securing his apartment when they arrested him, allowing the burglary to occur.
The tenant brought a complaint to the IPCA, which was not upheld.
Essentially, [The tenant/s] position is that Kainga Ora, despite its social housing and support obligations, has not supported him seeking redress for the burglary by occupants of another Kainga Ora tenancy, or in his dealings with the police. He says that Kainga Ora has been shown to be inept in managing the high and complex needs and behaviours of tenants such as his neighbours.
He says that when seeking assurances that there would be no repeat of the incident, he was victim blamed and not allowed to describe the incident in the terms preferred by him. The Tribunal’s Jurisdiction
As was discussed at the hearing, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is, “... to determine in accordance with [the Residential Tenancies Act] any dispute that—(a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.”
That jurisdiction does not extend to holding Kainga Ora to account for obligations it may have as a social housing provider under other legislation or policy requirements.
The relevant obligation owed by Kainga Ora to [The tenant/s] under the RTA is by s.45(1)(e) to: “......take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.”
Assessment of [The tenant/s]’s claims against that obligation, requires the Tribunal to consider the following questions: a. has there been an interference with [The tenant/s]’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy? b. was that interference caused or permitted by another of the landlord’s tenants? c. were there reasonable steps available to Kainga Ora to prevent that interference, that Kainga Ora ought to have taken? Assessment
I find it proved on the balance of probabilities that [The tenant/s]’s reasonable peace comfort or privacy was interfered with. That does not require me to apportion responsibility for the altercation between [The tenant/s] and the other protagonist.
It seems clear from the evidence that the altercation was one in which the other tenant’s family participated. A threat made against [The tenant/s] was acknowledged.
That interference was caused by the family of the other tenant, for whose actions that tenant was responsible (s.41 RTA).
The key issue here is whether Kainga Ora ought reasonably have done more to prevent that interference or to support [The tenant/s] afterward.
Prior to this incident, in early November 2024, [The tenant/s] had raised concerns about children at those neighbouring premises, causing noise and nuisance in the stairwells.
Kainga Ora investigated, approached the other tenant and noted [The tenant/s]’s concerns. It reported back to [The tenant/s] at that time who responded, “Just wanted to say thanks for responding to my concerns regarding [tenancy address suppressed] and the fact that she's now got her two preteen boys with her. I just wanted to reiterate that I would never want to interfere her right to have it was with her, I just questioned whether it was the right place for them.”
That communication does not corroborate [The tenant/s]’s claim that Kainga Ora did nothing about the concerns he had earlier raised in connection with the neighbouring apartment.
The evidence does not establish that there were warnings or indications about the incident on 10 November 2024 that Kainga Ora was or should have been aware of, that it would have been reasonable for Kainga Ora to act on to prevent the incident occurring.
Following that incident, Kainga Ora made the CCTV footage available to police to assist its investigation. When asked by [The tenant/s], Kainga Ora followed up with police about its investigation of [The tenant/s]’s burglary complaint. It was told, “It has been filed... it seems that he'd like his victims charged with burglary however police do not have evidential sufficiently to charge anyone.”
[The tenant/s] is concerned that the correspondence between Kainga Ora and at the police shows that instead of supporting him as their tenant, Kainga Ora simply accepted the police approach of blaming him for the incident.
On 15 November 2024 Kainga Ora issued the neighbouring tenant with an anti- social behaviour notice under s. 55A RTA saying: “On Sunday 10th November 2024 at approximately 8:30pm outside your unit in the communal hallway your mother was involved in a verbal altercation with your neighbour at [tenancy address suppressed]. You have admitted your sister verbally threatening your neighbour. We consider this behaviour to be anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy and it has caused distress. This is a breach of your agreement and the RTA it is important that this does not happen again.”
In terms of Kainga Ora’s responsibility around the incidents that occurred, to take the reasonable steps available to it: a. Kainga Ora should have investigated [The tenant/s]’s complaints about the boys running around causing disruption in the stairwells. It did so and [The tenant/s] acknowledged the response to his concerns; b. after becoming aware of the incident on 10 November 2024 it should have ensured the protagonists were put on notice that such behaviour is unacceptable and risked jeopardising their tenancy if it continued. It did so by issuing a s.55A notice; c. it should have assisted the police investigation of the incident and of [The tenant/s]’s burglary complaint. It did so.
I do not find it proved that there were other avenues reasonably available to Kainga Ora to prevent intrusion into [The tenant/s]’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.
It is not responsible for the conduct of tenants that it is not aware of or reasonably able to prevent.
In connection with the alleged crimes of assault, threatening behaviour and burglary, [The tenant/s] is correct that the level of proof required in civil disputes is lesser than that required for criminal prosecutions. Nevertheless in my view it is not reasonable to expect that Kainga Ora should undertake and act upon its own enquiries, independently of an ongoing police investigation/ prosecution.
For those for reasons I do not find a beach of Kainga Ora’s obligations under section 451(e) proved and the tenant’s claim is dismissed.
Although that claim was not pursued at the hearing, for completeness I note my finding that Kainga Ora is not therefore liable to compensate [The tenant/s] for the value of his stolen property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5148352 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5148352 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions