What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5198992 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5198992?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5198992?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5198992?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11725889-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5198992 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5198992?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5198992?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5198992?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11725889-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

19 Seath Avenue, Taumarunui, Taumarunui 3920 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5198992 — 14-day notice

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied to terminate the periodic tenancy: a. “On the grounds it would be unreasonable to expect the owner to continue on with this tenancy.” See section 55B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). b. Because the tenant’s son has assaulted or threatened to assault the landlord and the property manager, being an agent of the landlord. See section 55(1)(c) RTA. c. Because the tenant’s son has breached the terms of the tenancy agreement and/or the RTA, the breach cannot be remedied and “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”. See section 56 RTA. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be decided.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the landlord’s application with this requirement in mind. Landlord’s evidence
The landlord provided the following evidence in support of its claims: a. A text from the tenant stating: “Just a heads up [property manager] The owner turned up again with the electricians the owner opened the door so [tenant’s son, M] confronted him and asked him to leave owner threatened to call the police and filmed M.” b. A police acknowledgement form dated 12 March 2025 regarding an allegation that M behaved threateningly towards the property manager on 14 February 2025: “I was at work completing a property inspection at the property. I am a property manager. I was walking around the outside of the property with the tenant Mere when her son started yelling at me and then came running outside, still yelling and swearing toward us both. I did not feel safe so I immediately walked very fast off the property, hopped into my vehicle and left... On Saturday 8th March 2025 I sent a tradesperson along with the landlord to this address (the tenant was notified in writing 4 days before) The landlord reported back to me on Monday 10th March advising me of abuse this person gave and also showed me video footage of it.” c. Three brief video clips recorded by the landlord of M yelling at him as he left the property and was in his car. d. The landlord claimed M attacked the landlord’s car with a metal pole.
The landlord advised that neither the property manager nor the landlord who have alleged they were verbally abused by M were available to give evidence. The tenant’s evidence
Despite the tenant’s text giving a heads up to the property manager referred to above, the tenant denied witnessing either of these events.
Her son M gave evidence as follows: a. When the landlord and electrician came to the property, he became angry because the landlord was videoing him and he yelled at him. b. He yelled at the property manager in an outburst that he estimated lasted 10 seconds. c. He denied attacking anyone’s car with a metal pole. Termination for hardship: section 55B RTA
The landlord has applied to terminate the periodic tenancy on the grounds of hardship.
The Tribunal may terminate a periodic tenancy on the grounds of hardship where: a. Without the order the landlord would suffer greater hardship than the tenant and b. Because of the hardship it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy.
In making such an order the Tribunal must take into account the impact termination would have on the tenant.
No evidence was submitted of the landlord’s financial hardship. Instead, the landlord believes that because of the tenant’s bad-tempered behaviour, it would cause hardship to the landlord to continue with the tenancy.
If the tenancy were terminated, the tenant and her son would be without the home they have occupied for 12 years.
On the very limited evidence before the Tribunal, it is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord’s hardship would be greater than the tenant’s. The landlord’s claim in the application form for termination on these grounds appears ill-founded. There are other steps and applications that the landlord could have taken in response to the tenant’s behaviour.
The landlord’s application under section 55B RTA is dismissed. Termination for assault or threatening to assault: section 55(1)(c) RTA
The landlord has not provided any evidence that M assaulted or threatened to assault the landlord or the property manager.
M denied assaulting the landlord’s car with a metal pole and the landlord produced no evidence in support of this serious claim, either from the landlord or by producing a photograph of any damage.
M accepted that he verbally abused them and this is supported by the very brief video evidence.
The landlord claimed that verbal abuse was assault, a criminal offence under the Crimes Act 1961.
Section 2 of the Crimes Act 1961 defines assault as: “assault means the 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 or she has, present ability to effect his or her purpose”
Yelling threats to assault somebody may meet the definition of assault under the Crimes Act 1961 definition. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that M threatened to apply force to any other person. Yelling abuse at somebody is not assault.
Nor is there any evidence before the Tribunal that M has committed any of the assault offences under sections 188 to 204 of the Crimes Act 1961.
The landlord’s application for termination on the basis that M assaulted or threatened to assault the landlord or the property manager is dismissed. Termination for breach: section 56 RTA
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The landlord did not specify any specific term of the tenancy agreement or the RTA which the tenant, through her son M, has breached by yelling at the landlord.
The behaviour was anti-social. If so, the landlord’s appropriate course of action was to issue a notice under section 55A RTA. If the behaviour continued, it could have continued to issue further notices until it could bring an application for termination under that section. It did not do so.
M has accepted his anti-social behaviour. This is a breach that is not capable of remedy and the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant.
The Tribunal must determine whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered section 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is not satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because: a. The tenancy is a long-standing tenancy of 12 years. No evidence was presented to the Tribunal that there had been any prior issues. b. The evidence is that there were two brief outbursts by M that intimidated the property manager and the landlord. There is no evidence that any breach notices were issue to the tenant. c. There is no evidence whether the breaches are likely to continue or cease. d. The outbursts were spontaneous, but were intentional. e. As noted, the landlord could have taken other steps under section 55A RTA to bring home to the tenant the potentially serious consequences of his actions. f. The outbursts were understandably intimidating to the recipients and were taken so seriously by the property manager that she made a complaint to the police, although some four weeks after the incident. g. There is no evidence from either the property manager or the owner that shows that the tenant threatened them physically. The evidence is that they were each subjected to a tirade. It would be a disproportionate response to terminate this tenancy because of these two outbursts. As noted above, if the landlord wished to pursue termination of the tenancy for behaviour of this nature, it should have issued notices under section 55A RTA and made its application under that provision.
The landlord’s claim under section 56 RTA is dismissed. Notice of termination
The tenant raised that it had given notice to the tenant to terminate the tenancy under section 55AA RTA. Prior to the hearing the tenant had asked the Tribunal whether she needed to vacate based on this notice and was advised that this would be discussed at the hearing.
No copy of the landlord’s notice was before the Tribunal, although the landlord confirmed that it had been issued.
The Tribunal confirms that under section 55AA(1)(b) RTA it is a requirement that “a charge has been filed in respect of the physical assault against the tenant by or on behalf of the Crown”.
At the hearing the landlord could not confirm that a charge had been brought against M. It is difficult to see that the landlord’s notice could have been accompanied by qualifying evidence as required section 55AA(3)(b) RTA or that the landlord satisfied itself of this essential fact.
It would therefore seem probable that the landlord’s notice was invalid and is of no effect.
The landlord needs to be aware that section 60AA RTA provides that: “A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application.” Suppression
As the landlord’s application has not been successful, it is appropriate that the tenant’s name be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5198992 — 14-day notice at 19 Seath Avenue, Taumarunui, Taumarunui 3920

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5198992 — 14-day notice at 19 Seath Avenue, Taumarunui, Taumarunui 3920

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