What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5238311 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s name and details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5238311?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5238311?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5238311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11808646-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5238311 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s name and details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5238311?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5238311?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5238311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11808646-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

35B Alexander Street, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5238311 — 14-day notice

Order

The landlord’s name and details are suppressed.
The tenancy of Hagai Alan Tera at 35B Alexander Street, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5 pm Thursday 15 May 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord’s application was for termination of the tenancy because the tenant threatened to murder the landlord’s Property Manager. See section 55(1)(c)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord provided evidence of an email chain between the landlord and the tenant regarding the presence of a cat at the premises. The tenant claimed in the emails both that he was the owner of the property and that he had the owner’s consent to him having a cat. The final email from the tenant to the landlord on 15 April 2025 read: “Look it up or I’ll murder you.”
The landlord filed a report with the police on 15 April 2025 and a copy was supplied to the Tribunal.
The landlord explained that the tenancy needed to be terminated because it was unsafe for the Property Manager, her staff and contractors to go to the property after such a threat had been made.
The tenant repeated his claim that he was an owner of the property and invited me to look it up. The landlord has provided the Record of Title for the property confirming that the tenant is not recorded as an owner.
The tenant denied threatening to murder the Property Manager, even when I read out to him the email which had been provided as evidence. He then suggested that it must have been sent by someone else using his computer.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant sent the email to the Property Manager and threatened her with murder, that is, assault.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal in support of the tenant’s suggestion that someone else sent the email. The tenant simply wishes to deny sending it, just as he has insisted on his unsubstantiated claim that he owns the property.
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 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.
In determining the exercise of the discretion in section 56(1)(c) RTA, the District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management Limited [2020] NZDC 19229, stated at [61]: “Factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate this tenancy include: i. The history of the tenancy. ii. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. iii. Whether the history of breaches was such that it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. iv. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. v. The conduct of the landlord. vi. The gravity of the breach. vii. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
In this case: a. There has not been a history of threats or other issues with the tenancy. b. As there have been no previous instances of threats, no warnings have been issued. c. The Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenant would not make further threats. d. The threat was made intentionally and was committed to writing in an email. e. A threat to murder someone is a serious breach and may constitute an assault under the definition in the Crimes Act 1961. It is a threat that the landlord has taken seriously by reporting the matter to the police. f. Such a threat cannot be ignored or dismissed. It is a proportionate response to terminate the tenancy.
The Tribunal therefore determines that it is not appropriate to exercise the discretion in section 55(2) RTA and that the tenancy should be terminated.

Order

The landlord’s name and details are suppressed.
The tenancy of Hagai Alan Tera at 35B Alexander Street, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5 pm Thursday 15 May 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord’s application was for termination of the tenancy because the tenant threatened to murder the landlord’s Property Manager. See section 55(1)(c)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord provided evidence of an email chain between the landlord and the tenant regarding the presence of a cat at the premises. The tenant claimed in the emails both that he was the owner of the property and that he had the owner’s consent to him having a cat. The final email from the tenant to the landlord on 15 April 2025 read: “Look it up or I’ll murder you.”
The landlord filed a report with the police on 15 April 2025 and a copy was supplied to the Tribunal.
The landlord explained that the tenancy needed to be terminated because it was unsafe for the Property Manager, her staff and contractors to go to the property after such a threat had been made.
The tenant repeated his claim that he was an owner of the property and invited me to look it up. The landlord has provided the Record of Title for the property confirming that the tenant is not recorded as an owner.
The tenant denied threatening to murder the Property Manager, even when I read out to him the email which had been provided as evidence. He then suggested that it must have been sent by someone else using his computer.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant sent the email to the Property Manager and threatened her with murder, that is, assault.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal in support of the tenant’s suggestion that someone else sent the email. The tenant simply wishes to deny sending it, just as he has insisted on his unsubstantiated claim that he owns the property.
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 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.
In determining the exercise of the discretion in section 56(1)(c) RTA, the District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management Limited [2020] NZDC 19229, stated at [61]: “Factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate this tenancy include: i. The history of the tenancy. ii. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. iii. Whether the history of breaches was such that it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. iv. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. v. The conduct of the landlord. vi. The gravity of the breach. vii. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
In this case: a. There has not been a history of threats or other issues with the tenancy. b. As there have been no previous instances of threats, no warnings have been issued. c. The Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenant would not make further threats. d. The threat was made intentionally and was committed to writing in an email. e. A threat to murder someone is a serious breach and may constitute an assault under the definition in the Crimes Act 1961. It is a threat that the landlord has taken seriously by reporting the matter to the police. f. Such a threat cannot be ignored or dismissed. It is a proportionate response to terminate the tenancy.
The Tribunal therefore determines that it is not appropriate to exercise the discretion in section 55(2) RTA and that the tenancy should be terminated.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5238311 — 14-day notice at 35B Alexander Street, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5238311 — 14-day notice at 35B Alexander Street, Awapuni, Palmerston North 4412

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