What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5236131 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jason Bowers at Unit/Flat 11, 26 Dover Street, St Albans,

How much money was awarded in case 5236131?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5236131?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5236131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11847271-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5236131 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jason Bowers at Unit/Flat 11, 26 Dover Street, St Albans,

How much money was awarded in case 5236131?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5236131?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5236131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11847271-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 11, 26 Dover Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5236131 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Jason Bowers at Unit/Flat 11, 26 Dover Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014, Dover Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm Thursday 22 May 2025.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

The hearing was set down for a video hearing at 2 pm on Monday 12 May 2025.
The landlord connected to the video hearing at the appointed time. The tenant did not. Although the tenant ad not requested to attend by other means, he was telephoned twice but did not answer and messages were left.
The hearing proceeded in the absence of the tenant until 2.28 pm when the Tribunal was advised that the tenant had made contact using another telephone number. The tenant was telephoned on that number and joined the hearing. The landlord’s application
The landlord’s application was for termination of the tenancy on two grounds: a. The tenant has threatened to assault the landlord or its agent, being employees of the landlord. See sections 55(1)(c)((i) and (iii). b. The tenant has breached section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) by using or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose by selling synthetic drugs. See sections 9 and 70 Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 and section 56 RTA. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the landlord’s claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its 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.
The landlord has made serious allegations and so the Tribunal needs to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be decided.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts, videos and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
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.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
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) 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 applications with this requirement in mind. The tenant’s request to appoint a representative and for an adjournment
When the tenant was telephoned on the number provided, the telephone was answered by another tenant in the complex, Nikora. He explained that the tenant was unable to speak to the hearing because he was unwell and suffered from ADHD. No evidence was provided in support of this claim. Nikora advised that that the tenant had asked him to speak on his behalf.
The Tribunal had not received any advice from the tenant that he had changed his telephone number, was unwell or unable to attend, that he wished to appoint a representative or wanted the hearing adjourned.
The Tribunal approved Nikora representing the tenant who was present in the room with Nikora.
Nikora requested an adjournment to a hearing in person on the following grounds: a. The tenant had only at the weekend asked him to represent him and Nikora had not had time to prepare. b. There was evidence and there were witnesses which he wished to call. c. The tenant suffered from ADHD and did not realise the seriousness of the landlord’s application.
The Tribunal determined that an adjournment should not be granted for the following reasons: a. Notice was given to the tenant of the hearing on 28 April 2024, two weeks before the hearing date. The landlord confirmed that it had dropped a copy of the Hearing Notice at the property on 28 April 2024. The tenant had adequate time to request an adjournment or request the appointment of a representative and did not do so. b. The landlord’s application is urgent. It involves serious allegations against the tenant that impact on the safety and wellbeing of the landlord’s other tenants in this social housing complex. c. It is not possible to defer a hearing in the Tribunal by a day or a week. Its timetable is set some months in advance and it may take six or more weeks before an in person hearing date may become available. d. The RTA requires the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to be administered in an expeditious manner. It must ensure that a claim for termination for a threat to assault an agent of the landlord is dealt with as a matter of urgency. e. The fact situation giving rise to the allegation that the tenant threatened to assault an agent of the landlord is succinct and well-suited to a hearing by telephone. f. The landlord opposed the granting of an adjournment.
Nikora repeatedly complained of the Tribunal’s refusal to grant an adjournment throughout the hearing and was repeatedly advised that the Tribunal had made its decision for the reasons given above and the hearing was proceeding. Landlord’s claim for termination for threatening to assault an agent of the landlord
During the period prior to the tenant and Nikora joining the hearing, one of the landlord’s Tenancy Advisors (“Advisor 1”) read out his statement that had been filed in evidence and supplied to the tenant. This evidence was discussed again after the tenant joined the hearing and Advisor 1 was cross-examined by the tenant’s representative regarding it.
With the tenant and Nikora attending the hearing, the landlord’s second witness (“Advisor 2”) gave evidence as follows, supported by her written statement filed with the landlord’s application: a. She attended the complex at around 10 am on 14 April 2025 with Advisor 2 to meet with a glazier at a nearby unit. A number of police were present and were talking to the tenant. She ascertained that the back door to the tenant’s unit had been broken by intruders, the tenant’s girlfriend had been assaulted and various items had been taken. b. The tenant asked her to log a job to have the back door boarded up. She took photographs of the damage and logged the repair. c. The tenant told her that he had no idea why anyone would assault his girlfriend and not assault him. She told the tenant that the landlord believed that drug dealing was happening from his unit over the past week. The tenant advised that his girlfriend was selling $2 bags of homegrown tobacco. He advised that these funds were used to pay for his marijuana and that he “only does green, not white.” d. Advisor 1 gave the tenant his card and asked him to come into the office to discuss matters. The tenant said he could come next week. Advisor 1 told him that he needed to come in the next few days as his tenancy was at risk. e. “Jason became very aggressive towards [Advisor 1], getting in his face and saying he was staunching him out. [Advisor 1] asked Jason to back off, Jason continued to get in his face and follow him to the car. As we neared the car Jason threatened [Advisor 1] saying “I’ll end you cunt.” f. The police officer who had been speaking to Jason witnessed this incident and called Jason to come back to where he had been sitting.
Under cross-examination by Nikora, Advisor 2 confirmed: a. The whole incident took less than ten minutes. b. She showed Jason her ID and both she and Advisor 1 were wearing vests showing the landlord’s identity and were driving a vehicle branded with the landlord’s name. c. The tenant was not aggressive to her.
Advisor 1 gave written evidence and evidence in person at the hearing as follows: a. He went to the complex at 10 am on 14 April 2025 with Advisor 2 in order to meet with a contractor. b. On arrival he saw several detectives and a police photographer outside Jason’s unit and a detective was talking to Jason. c. The detectives told him that they were investigating a home invasion. d. He approached Jason and gave him his card and told him he would need to come into the office to discuss what had been occurring. He immediately said “I won’t deal any more synnies.” When told that “it was a bit late for that as damage had been done and his tenancy was now seriously in jeopardy”, Jason “changed tack and said it was only tobacco”. e. Jason said he could not come in until next week. Advisor 1 said that “it needed to be before then, as it was a serious matter.” f. “As I walked to the car with [Advisor 2], Jason followed me, came up to within about 30 cm from me and said, “are you trying to be staunch cunt”. I told him to walk away, and as I took steps to walk away, he said he could walk wherever he wanted. He then leaned into me and was only about 15 centimetres from my face when he said “I’m going to end you cunt”. [Advisor 2] heard these comments, but the Police were several metres away, so would not have heard. The Police were however clearly concerned by Jason’s level of aggression so told him to leave me alone and come back towards them.” g. He believes the tenant leaned in to say these threatening words so that they could only be heard by people in close proximity. h. He made contemporaneous notes about the incident immediately upon his return to the office and these were filed in evidence. i. The landlord issued a notice of anti-social behaviour in relation to this incident on 17 April 2025 which has not been challenged by the tenant.
Under cross-examination by Nikora, he advised: a. The interaction with the tenant took between a minute and a minute and a half. b. His discussion with the detective took less than a minute. c. He had not met the tenant before.
Nikora advised that Jason would not be giving evidence about the incident. He provided a text from an unidentified person without a date or telephone number stating: “Hi Jason. Sorry I’m not back in the office until Thursday. I don’t recall you threatening him...” Nikora claimed that the text was from the policeman at the scene. Without any identifying details, it is of no probative value.
Nikora claimed that the tenant’s tenancy needed to be considered in its totality and that there had been no incidents over the first year of the tenancy and that it was unfair to judge the tenancy based on this one incident.
As pointed out at the hearing more than once, the landlord’s application under section 55(1)(c) RTA relates to this one incident when the tenant threatened Advisor 1. This provision in the RTA requires the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy of a tenant who threatens the landlord or an agent of the landlord, subject only to the proviso in section 55(2) RTA. In other words, the threat made by the tenant is the crucial matter for the Tribunal’s consideration. Consideration and decision
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant threatened the landlord’s agent or representative as alleged. Advisor 1’s evidence is supported by that of Advisor 2. Advisor 1 made contemporaneous notes while the incident was fresh in his mind. The tenant has provided no cogent evidence to challenge the Advisors’ personal testimony.
Section 55(1)(c) RTA provides that on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has threatened to assault the landlord or any agent of the landlord.
The Tribunal may refuse to make the order sought by the landlord 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 of a kind to which section 55 RTA applies. See section 55(2) RTA.
The High Court has determined that while the threat cannot be undone or remedied, the Tribunal retains the power to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will make further threats to assault the landlord’s agent.
In these circumstances, the landlord has not suffered any loss for which the tenant should pay compensation.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenant will not make further threats to assault the landlord or its agent. Nikora explained that Jason is easily “elevated” and appeared to be suggesting that the landlord’s agents in some way were responsible for causing this and the tenant making the threat because he suffers from ADHD. Jason’s ADHD and failure to regulate his emotion may be a reason why he made the threat, but it is not an excuse or defence.
This is not the first incident involving similar behaviour. The landlord filed in evidence a further notice of anti-social behaviour issued on 7 March 2025 for “Threatening and abusive behaviour towards a staff member” on 4 March 2025. This has not been challenged by the tenant and precedes this incident by about six weeks.
Making a threat against the landlord or any of the other parties listed in section 55(1)(c) RTA is a serious matter. It poses a threat to the health and safety of the landlord’s employees which must be taken seriously. For this reason a threat to assault the landlord or its agent is a ground to terminate a tenancy, the most serious sanction available to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal therefore determines that the tenancy is to be terminated. Landlord’s claim for termination for using the premises for an unlawful purpose
The landlord gave evidence in support of its application as follows: a. A series of brief videos filmed by Advisor 1 on 11 April 2025 showing a succession of people pulling up outside the tenant’s unit in cars and on bicycles who walked towards the tenant’s unit, became obscured and then left within less than a minute. The videos record 10 separate, very brief visits within a 35-minute period. b. Advisor 1 gave evidence that the tenant’s unit “had some sort of wooden structure out the front, that customers went into and came out about 30 seconds after going in. The wooden structure was hiding the actual exchange of money and handover of synthetics, but it was clearly synthetics as the point bags were hidden in the customers hands or pockets.” c. As detailed above, the tenant promised not to continue dealing in “synnies” when approached by Advisor 1 about a meeting. d. An email from a case manager at a specialist mental health service that a client of his claims that he was supplied by a neighbour with synthetic cannabis and was dealing from his property. The landlord advised that the neighbour was Jason.
Nikora denied that Jason was dealing drugs from the property.
An allegation of such a serious nature such as drug dealing will require the Tribunal to be careful in estimating whether or not the inference to be drawn is in truth probable rather than merely possible.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it that the landlord has established on the balance of probabilities that the tenant was dealing synthetic drugs from the property for the following reasons: a. There is no scientific evidence before the Tribunal of the presence of any illegal drugs. Where the Tribunal determines that a tenant has been smoking methamphetamines in a property, it requires evidence of scientific testing establishing that methamphetamine has contaminated the premises through use. In this case, there is only a supposition that people were coming to the property to buy drugs. There is no actual evidence of what it was they were doing in coming to the property and whether they were in fact buying anything. b. While Advisor 1 has significant experience as a former policeman and may have seen such behaviour on other occasions where drug dealing was later established based on the seizure of drugs, cash and cell phones from the premises, in this case there is no evidence supporting the allegation that drugs were involved. Nor is there direct evidence that the people visiting the property paid money to the tenant or left with anything. The transaction between the visitors and the tenant were concealed from the recording camera. c. The only evidence is of people coming and coming out of the premises in quick succession. The landlord’s evidence is that the deal bags were concealed by the alleged customers. If they could not be seen, then this evidence is of doubtful probative value. d. The email from the mental health specialist confirms only that a client of his claims to have been supplied by a neighbour with synthetic cannabis and was dealing from his property. This is hearsay evidence at best. The case manager has no way of attesting to the veracity of his client’s claim as it relates to Jason. e. The tenant’s alleged acceptance of dealing was denied by him in the same conversation and was denied by him at the hearing. His confession to Advisor 1 was far from full and frank and was immediately retracted. f. There is no direct evidence from any person that they purchased drugs from the tenant. g. The evidence does no more than establish that it is possible that the tenant was dealing drugs from the property but does not establish that it is more likely than not.
The landlord’s claim for termination under section 56 RTA for a breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5236131 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 11, 26 Dover Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5236131 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 11, 26 Dover Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014,

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