What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5161992 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5161992?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5161992?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5161992?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11570887-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5161992 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5161992?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5161992?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5161992?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11570887-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5161992 — Smoke alarms

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by phone.
The Applicant has applied for termination of the tenancy based on an alleged assault by the Respondent.
The Applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The Applicant made an Online Police Report, which states: Tenancy Relationship Manager [A] ... and Asset Manager [B] ... from Accessible Properties arrived at [Address] for a scheduled routine 6 monthly inspection. [Respondent] was aware the inspection was taking place and had confirmed the time suited her. [Respondent] was happy to allow both persons to enter the property when we arrived. [Respondent] became agitated during the inspection when she took us outside to show us where she would like a gate installed. [Respondent] explained she currently sleeps in the garage, as she has five children in the house; 2 boys who each have their own room, twin girls who share, an older daughter and an older son who each have their own room; she said that she had to sleep in the garage due to lack of space. It is standard procedure during a routine property inspection, to check all areas of the property including garages to make sure all smoke alarms are working. Upon entering the garage, [Respondent] became very loud, agitated, and asked why we needed to look inside 'her space'? We responded that as part of the inspection, every room, including the garage needed to be checked. At this point [Respondent] became abusive and yelled at us to 'get out', [Respondent] then pushed both the Tenancy Relationship Manager and Asset managers shoulders, and again shouted, 'get out'.
The Applicant produced the Tenancy Relationship Manager [A] as a witness.
In explaining how the alleged assault occurred, the Applicant described how the Respondent had told [A] she did not want her to inspect the garage. [A] tried to enter the garage and the Respondent allegedly put her hands on [A] and pushed her. The Respondent denies doing this.
The Landlord explained how the Asset Manager [B] was available for questioning by phone. However, in the end, I accept that, more likely than not, some physical contact has occurred between the parties during this inspection, and it has occurred when the Landlord has tried to enter the garage. I consider that the physical contact would not have occurred, on balance, if the Landlord had, according to [B’s] narrative, not placed herself in the garage knowing that the Respondent had declined her entry. The Landlord should have returned to the office and informed her manager, who could then have served a 14-day notice under s 56. The Police can investigate [A’s] allegation of assault and a prosecution can be brought. However, for the purposes of s 56 I would need to consider whether the assault is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. Given the nature of the alleged assault, the Respondent’s placing of her hands on [A] and “pushing,” in circumstances where she told [A] she did not want [A] and [B] to enter the garage and [A] attempted entry into the garage anyway, the Respondent’s conduct could be fairly characterised as assertive, and necessary, to protect her property rights.
The Applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the Respondent’s actions justify terminated the tenancy.
Consequently, I dismiss the Landlord’s application.
I grant name suppression to the Respondent, who has successfully defended the claim.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by phone.
The Applicant has applied for termination of the tenancy based on an alleged assault by the Respondent.
The Applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The Applicant made an Online Police Report, which states: Tenancy Relationship Manager [A] ... and Asset Manager [B] ... from Accessible Properties arrived at [Address] for a scheduled routine 6 monthly inspection. [Respondent] was aware the inspection was taking place and had confirmed the time suited her. [Respondent] was happy to allow both persons to enter the property when we arrived. [Respondent] became agitated during the inspection when she took us outside to show us where she would like a gate installed. [Respondent] explained she currently sleeps in the garage, as she has five children in the house; 2 boys who each have their own room, twin girls who share, an older daughter and an older son who each have their own room; she said that she had to sleep in the garage due to lack of space. It is standard procedure during a routine property inspection, to check all areas of the property including garages to make sure all smoke alarms are working. Upon entering the garage, [Respondent] became very loud, agitated, and asked why we needed to look inside 'her space'? We responded that as part of the inspection, every room, including the garage needed to be checked. At this point [Respondent] became abusive and yelled at us to 'get out', [Respondent] then pushed both the Tenancy Relationship Manager and Asset managers shoulders, and again shouted, 'get out'.
The Applicant produced the Tenancy Relationship Manager [A] as a witness.
In explaining how the alleged assault occurred, the Applicant described how the Respondent had told [A] she did not want her to inspect the garage. [A] tried to enter the garage and the Respondent allegedly put her hands on [A] and pushed her. The Respondent denies doing this.
The Landlord explained how the Asset Manager [B] was available for questioning by phone. However, in the end, I accept that, more likely than not, some physical contact has occurred between the parties during this inspection, and it has occurred when the Landlord has tried to enter the garage. I consider that the physical contact would not have occurred, on balance, if the Landlord had, according to [B’s] narrative, not placed herself in the garage knowing that the Respondent had declined her entry. The Landlord should have returned to the office and informed her manager, who could then have served a 14-day notice under s 56. The Police can investigate [A’s] allegation of assault and a prosecution can be brought. However, for the purposes of s 56 I would need to consider whether the assault is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. Given the nature of the alleged assault, the Respondent’s placing of her hands on [A] and “pushing,” in circumstances where she told [A] she did not want [A] and [B] to enter the garage and [A] attempted entry into the garage anyway, the Respondent’s conduct could be fairly characterised as assertive, and necessary, to protect her property rights.
The Applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the Respondent’s actions justify terminated the tenancy.
Consequently, I dismiss the Landlord’s application.
I grant name suppression to the Respondent, who has successfully defended the claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5161992 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5161992 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions