How much money was awarded in case 5211414?

Applicant’S Request That The Amount…: $577.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5211414?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5211414?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11697877-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5211414?

Applicant’S Request That The Amount…: $577.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5211414?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5211414?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11697877-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

10 Kenheath Place, Taumarunui, Taumarunui 3920 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5211414 — 14-day notice

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5211414 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Application 5155017

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5211414. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
applicant’s request that the amount the tenant is ordered to pay is to be paid by the		$577.00	applicant’s request that the amount the tenant is ordered to pay is to be paid by the

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

Both parties’ applications for rehearing of the order issued on 4/3/2025 under application 5155017 are dismissed. The stay of proceedings is lifted. The possession order is enforceable in accordance with order 4 below on 13/4/2025.

The Tribunal order issued on 4 March 2025 is amended only to clarify that at the applicant’s request that the amount the tenant is ordered to pay ($577) is to be paid by the tenant directly (as a debt owing) and not to be refunded from the Bond. [The landlord/s] Application 5211414

The tenancy of Wana Desmond George Aramoana, at 10 Kenheath Place Taumaranui is terminated, and possession is granted to [the landlord} at 6pm on Sunday 13 April 2025

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Application 5211414

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because the tenant has threatened to assault the landlord/property manager.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 55 (1) (c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy if it is satisfied that the tenant has threatened to assault the landlord.

The evidence establishes that the tenant threatened to assault the property manager on 12 March 2025. He told her that he was going to “smash her” if she came back to the property, and then repeatedly told her to “f off” before repeating the threat.

The property manager was seriously concerned for her safety. The rental property is in a small town, and she knew the tenant was aware of where she lived.

The day prior, on 11/3/2025 two of the tenant’s daughters had also explicitly threatened the property manager. One had said “Shelley well do you know what, just fucken remember this, you fucken bitch karma’s a fucken bitch and it’s going to come back on you”. The other had said “my dad’s going to be real angry, let’s hope he doesn’t do anything or the others don’t”.

While the evidence does not support a finding that Mr Aramoana was in any way responsible for his daughter’s correspondence, or had explicitly permitted them to make the threats, the additional threats are relevant in that they heightened the property manager’s real concern for her safety. She has not been back to the property since and said she does not feel safe to go there.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The threats are explicit and abundantly threatening. They were designed to ensure the property manager was too fearful to return and that is exactly what has occurred.

The tenancy is terminated under s 55 (1) (c). Because the tenant has family including a very young baby at the property, the landlord agreed that the possession date could be extended to Sunday 13 April 2025.

As the tenancy is now terminated based on a new application the rehearing applications have become somewhat redundant but for the sake of completeness are dealt with below.

On 4 March 2025 the Tribunal made an order for compensation and termination of the tenancy due to a number of tenant breaches, after a detailed consideration of the landlord and owner’s submissions and evidence. Mr Aramoana was served with notice of the hearing but did not attend.

On 13 March 2025 Mr Aramoana applied for an out of time rehearing on the grounds that he did not attend the hearing as his daughter was flown to Waikato Hospital and that took priority for him and his whanau. He was asked to provide confirmation of the dates of her flight but did not.

At the hearing today, his daughter said she was flown to Waikato hospital on 6 March 2025.

Mr Aramoana said he is not good with reading and writing and was not really aware of what the 4 March hearing was about. He did not attend as he did not really understand the application or that it could end in the order terminating his tenancy.

Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.

Usually, the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.

The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

I am not satisfied that there are grounds for a rehearing. Mr Aramoana was aware of the hearing. If he did not understand what the applications meant or what could happen based on the requests made, then he could have sought advise about that. He could also have asked for the hearing to be adjourned. He did not do anything.

His daughter’s flight to Waikato did not happen on 4/3/2025, the day of the hearing. Mr Aramoana’s daughter confirmed she was home that day, and her health was being monitored. While it makes sense that she could not attend, she is not a named tenant and the explanation provided does not adequately explain Mr Aramoana’s non-attendance.

The landlord also applied for a rehearing, but confirmed today that was in fact a request to amend the order so that the amount awarded on 4/3/2025 was not refunded from a partial bond refund.

The landlord explained that the bond centre continues to hold the full bond, the order is amended to confirm that the tenant must pay the amount outstanding.

The landlord is entitled to the requested name suppression orders as the applications are successful.

Order

Application 5155017

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5211414. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
applicant’s request that the amount the tenant is ordered to pay is to be paid by the		$577.00	applicant’s request that the amount the tenant is ordered to pay is to be paid by the

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 Wana Desmond George Aramoana, at 10 Kenheath Place Taumaranui is terminated, and possession is granted to [the landlord} at 6pm on Sunday 13 April 2025

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Application 5211414

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because the tenant has threatened to assault the landlord/property manager.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 55 (1) (c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy if it is satisfied that the tenant has threatened to assault the landlord.

The property manager was seriously concerned for her safety. The rental property is in a small town, and she knew the tenant was aware of where she lived.

As the tenancy is now terminated based on a new application the rehearing applications have become somewhat redundant but for the sake of completeness are dealt with below.

At the hearing today, his daughter said she was flown to Waikato hospital on 6 March 2025.

The landlord also applied for a rehearing, but confirmed today that was in fact a request to amend the order so that the amount awarded on 4/3/2025 was not refunded from a partial bond refund.

The landlord explained that the bond centre continues to hold the full bond, the order is amended to confirm that the tenant must pay the amount outstanding.

The landlord is entitled to the requested name suppression orders as the applications are successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5211414 — 14-day notice at 10 Kenheath Place, Taumarunui, Taumarunui 3920

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5211414 — 14-day notice at 10 Kenheath Place, Taumarunui, Taumarunui 3920

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