What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5212812 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 5212812?

And Storage Of The Tenant’S Belongin…: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212812?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11722746-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5212812 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 5212812?

And Storage Of The Tenant’S Belongin…: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212812?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11722746-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5212812 — 14-day notice

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5212812. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
and storage of the tenant’s belongings currently located at the premises by 30 April 2025. 4. The landlord will contribu	$500.00		and storage of the tenant’s belongings currently located at the premises by 30 April 2025. 4. The landlord will contribu

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 3pm today, Tuesday 15 April 2025.
The parties agree that the landlord will work with the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Services Trust (PARS) to arrange the packing up, collection and storage of the tenant’s belongings currently located at the premises by 30 April 2025.
The landlord will contribute up to $500 towards the costs of packing up and storing the tenant’s belongings.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant is currently in custody and was assisted by a representative.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant threatened to cause substantial damage to the premises and the building in which the premises are located, including neighbouring tenant’s units. Threat of substantial damage
Section 55(1)(b) RTA states that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has threatened to cause substantial damage to the premises.
The “standard of proof” or the level or evidence required is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not.” Where the allegation amounts to a crime, the civil standard still applies. However that is not to say that a Court may not have regard to the seriousness of the allegations when applying the civil standard. McGrath, J in the Supreme Court decision Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 stated: “[102] The civil standard has been flexibly applied in civil proceedings no matter how serious the conduct that is alleged. In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.”
The tenant has rented the premises since 2018.
On 24 March 2025, the tenant was arrested and charged following an incident at the premises in which it is alleged that he threatened to blow up the building in which his premises and those of other tenants of the landlord are located with three LPG gas bottles he claimed were in his unit. This resulted in the building and surrounding buildings being evacuated. After several hours, the Police arrested the tenant and laid a charge of “Threatening Act Towards Dwellinghouse/Persons in Dwellinghouse” under section 308(1) Crimes Act which carries a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment. The tenant has not entered a plea to the charge and is currently being held in custody.
The landlord provided as evidence the Police Report Form and Summary of Facts describing the incident. The report and the summary of facts records the tenant’s statement to Police that he was going to blow himself up and his statement to Police that if Police came near him, he would blow up his building.
At the hearing today, the tenant and his representative explained that the tenant was recently served with a 90-day notice to terminate his tenancy on 14 May 2025. The tenant claims that this notice is retaliatory and is part of a long running campaign by the landlord to terminate his tenancy without grounds before the no-fault 90-day termination notice procedure was reintroduced with effect from 30 January 2025. The tenant also says that the termination is motivated on grounds of religious discrimination. He intends to file proceedings against the landlord challenging this notice and/or seeking a remedy for the discrimination and victimisation he claims to have suffered. The termination notice caused the tenant considerable upset and stress and what he acknowledged was a manic episode resulting in the current criminal charges laid against him.
The issue to determine is whether there was a threat to cause substantial damage.
Justice Keane commented in Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court, 2004 CIV -409-717 Christchurch, that to threaten to assault means just what it says: it is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough. Even under the criminal law, there is no need to intend to act on the threat, or to have the capacity to act on it; or that it be to, or be passed on to, the person to whom the threat relates. He also said that under the criminal law what must be proved is the intent that the threat be taken seriously by the person to whom it is made. How far that applies under the RTA is another question.
The intent of section 55(1)(b) is to protect the premises from damage. In this case the particular threat to blow up the building might also be considered a threat of assault under section 55(1)(c) RTA against other occupiers of the building and neighbours who could be harmed as a result. In this context, the fact of a threat is enough.
After reviewing all the evidence and the applicable law, I am satisfied for the purpose of s55(1)(b) that there is sufficient proof that the tenant threatened to substantially damage the building in which the premises are located so that there are grounds to terminate the tenancy. The threat was serious enough that Police were called; the building and other nearby buildings were evacuated; the incident lasted 6-7 hours; the tenant was arrested, charged and remains in custody. While the tenant has not entered a plea to the charge he has acknowledged in this hearing that he suffered a manic episode that led to the incident for which he has been criminally charged.
The next issue is whether there is reason to refuse to terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. Under that section, the Tribunal may refuse to make an order if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy); the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach.
A threat once made cannot be remedied. However, that does not prevent me from considering the remaining two issues. Compensation for any loss suffered is not a relevant question here, which leaves the last issue: Is the tenant likely to be threatening again?
The tenant is in custody and his representative confirmed that it is unlikely he will be granted bail or be able to return to the premises before the 90-day termination notice expires on 14 May 2025. Even if the tenant was granted bail, it is highly unlikely that he would be granted bail to reside at the premises. There is strong evidence that the tenant’s mental health is still vulnerable and there is no medical evidence to support a finding that the tenant is unlikely to behave in a threatening manner again. After listening to the parties and reviewing the evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenant will not behave in a threatening manner again. It follows that there is no reason to refuse to make an immediate termination order.
I am suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details because the order discloses information concerning criminal charges pending against him. The Tribunal is not certain whether the tenant may be subject to name suppression for the criminal charges laid. There is also an indication that the tenant may have mental health concerns and it would not be in the Public interest to identify him as it may be prejudicial to his health and well-being.
I am also suppressing the landlord’s name and identifying details as requested because they have succeeded with their application. K Stirling, 15 April 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5212812. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
and storage of the tenant’s belongings currently located at the premises by 30 April 2025. 4. The landlord will contribu	$500.00		and storage of the tenant’s belongings currently located at the premises by 30 April 2025. 4. The landlord will contribu

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 3pm today, Tuesday 15 April 2025.
The parties agree that the landlord will work with the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Services Trust (PARS) to arrange the packing up, collection and storage of the tenant’s belongings currently located at the premises by 30 April 2025.
The landlord will contribute up to $500 towards the costs of packing up and storing the tenant’s belongings.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant is currently in custody and was assisted by a representative.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant threatened to cause substantial damage to the premises and the building in which the premises are located, including neighbouring tenant’s units. Threat of substantial damage
Section 55(1)(b) RTA states that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has threatened to cause substantial damage to the premises.
The “standard of proof” or the level or evidence required is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not.” Where the allegation amounts to a crime, the civil standard still applies. However that is not to say that a Court may not have regard to the seriousness of the allegations when applying the civil standard. McGrath, J in the Supreme Court decision Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 stated: “[102] The civil standard has been flexibly applied in civil proceedings no matter how serious the conduct that is alleged. In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.”
The tenant has rented the premises since 2018.
On 24 March 2025, the tenant was arrested and charged following an incident at the premises in which it is alleged that he threatened to blow up the building in which his premises and those of other tenants of the landlord are located with three LPG gas bottles he claimed were in his unit. This resulted in the building and surrounding buildings being evacuated. After several hours, the Police arrested the tenant and laid a charge of “Threatening Act Towards Dwellinghouse/Persons in Dwellinghouse” under section 308(1) Crimes Act which carries a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment. The tenant has not entered a plea to the charge and is currently being held in custody.
The landlord provided as evidence the Police Report Form and Summary of Facts describing the incident. The report and the summary of facts records the tenant’s statement to Police that he was going to blow himself up and his statement to Police that if Police came near him, he would blow up his building.
At the hearing today, the tenant and his representative explained that the tenant was recently served with a 90-day notice to terminate his tenancy on 14 May 2025. The tenant claims that this notice is retaliatory and is part of a long running campaign by the landlord to terminate his tenancy without grounds before the no-fault 90-day termination notice procedure was reintroduced with effect from 30 January 2025. The tenant also says that the termination is motivated on grounds of religious discrimination. He intends to file proceedings against the landlord challenging this notice and/or seeking a remedy for the discrimination and victimisation he claims to have suffered. The termination notice caused the tenant considerable upset and stress and what he acknowledged was a manic episode resulting in the current criminal charges laid against him.
The issue to determine is whether there was a threat to cause substantial damage.
Justice Keane commented in Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court, 2004 CIV -409-717 Christchurch, that to threaten to assault means just what it says: it is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough. Even under the criminal law, there is no need to intend to act on the threat, or to have the capacity to act on it; or that it be to, or be passed on to, the person to whom the threat relates. He also said that under the criminal law what must be proved is the intent that the threat be taken seriously by the person to whom it is made. How far that applies under the RTA is another question.
The intent of section 55(1)(b) is to protect the premises from damage. In this case the particular threat to blow up the building might also be considered a threat of assault under section 55(1)(c) RTA against other occupiers of the building and neighbours who could be harmed as a result. In this context, the fact of a threat is enough.
After reviewing all the evidence and the applicable law, I am satisfied for the purpose of s55(1)(b) that there is sufficient proof that the tenant threatened to substantially damage the building in which the premises are located so that there are grounds to terminate the tenancy. The threat was serious enough that Police were called; the building and other nearby buildings were evacuated; the incident lasted 6-7 hours; the tenant was arrested, charged and remains in custody. While the tenant has not entered a plea to the charge he has acknowledged in this hearing that he suffered a manic episode that led to the incident for which he has been criminally charged.
The next issue is whether there is reason to refuse to terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. Under that section, the Tribunal may refuse to make an order if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy); the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach.
A threat once made cannot be remedied. However, that does not prevent me from considering the remaining two issues. Compensation for any loss suffered is not a relevant question here, which leaves the last issue: Is the tenant likely to be threatening again?
The tenant is in custody and his representative confirmed that it is unlikely he will be granted bail or be able to return to the premises before the 90-day termination notice expires on 14 May 2025. Even if the tenant was granted bail, it is highly unlikely that he would be granted bail to reside at the premises. There is strong evidence that the tenant’s mental health is still vulnerable and there is no medical evidence to support a finding that the tenant is unlikely to behave in a threatening manner again. After listening to the parties and reviewing the evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenant will not behave in a threatening manner again. It follows that there is no reason to refuse to make an immediate termination order.
I am suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details because the order discloses information concerning criminal charges pending against him. The Tribunal is not certain whether the tenant may be subject to name suppression for the criminal charges laid. There is also an indication that the tenant may have mental health concerns and it would not be in the Public interest to identify him as it may be prejudicial to his health and well-being.
I am also suppressing the landlord’s name and identifying details as requested because they have succeeded with their application. K Stirling, 15 April 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5212812 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5212812 — 14-day notice

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