What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5249731 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5249731?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5249731?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5249731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11850717-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5249731 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5249731?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5249731?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5249731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11850717-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5249731 — 14-day notice

Order

The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for a declaration that the notice given by a landlord in terminating the tenancy is retaliatory is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by her daughter, [The tenant’s representative].
The tenancy began in October 2014.
The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy pursuant to section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant applied for a declaration that a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy was retaliatory. Landlord’s application
The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy pursuant to section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s application is in relation to threats made by the tenant’s relative, [the tenant’s relatives] against staff of [The landlord/s].
In her statement filed, the tenant advises that her relative, [the tenant’s relative 1], was residing at the premises with her permission from approximately August 2024 until March 2025. [The tenant’s relative 1] was the sole occupant of the premises during this period due to the tenant being away from the property for extended periods.
Section 41 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out the Tenant’s responsibility for actions of others it provides: (1) The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.
There were two incidents where the landlord’s agent was threatened with assault. The first incident involved [the tenant’s relative 2] when after a failed routine inspection, he intercepted the Property Manager in her car and made threats.
The background to that incident was that at around 10.30am on Monday 24 March 2025 [The property manager/s], a Property Manager for [The property management company 1], attended at the premises to carry out the routine inspection. Her Police statement states that notice of this inspection was sent to the tenant on Friday 21 March 2025 with a reminder sent on Sunday 23 March 2025. At the time the tenant was not living in the premises and her evidence is that she was preoccupied at her daughter’s home due to her grandson having a broken arm.
According to the Police statement [The property manager/s] knocked on the door and called out multiple times. The statement records that no one answered the door, she had no response, and she did not hear any movement from within the address. Believing no one was home [The property manager/s] entered the premises with a key that had been given to her by the [The property management company 2]
The evidence filed indicates that once inside [The property manager/s] realised that someone was there so called out, gave her name and the reason she was there. The person responded with abuse and stated that she had been woken. [The property manager/s] left the premises.
After leaving in her car [The property manager/s] was intercepted by a vehicle driven by [the tenant’s relative 2], the father of [the tenant’s relative 1]. There was an altercation and [The property manager/s] claims that [the tenant’s relative 1] threatened her.
The second incident was threats of violence made by [the tenant’s relative 1] in a Facebook post.
The post was intended for the page of [The property management company 1]. The author of the post was [redacted] and the post states, “No one walks in and unlocks my door (with a key she stated the [The property management company 2] gave her) without permission, especially not for an inspection if the house owner + tenants haven’t been informed and contacted correctly. So the next [The property management company 1] worker who has the cheek will also have a shank in their neck running from my front door. I don’t make posts like this due to my whanau being so respected here, but I want to make things loud and clear.”
This post was intercepted by the administrator of the Facebook page and forwarded to the landlord. Therefore, while it was not posted to all members of the page, it was received by [The property management company 1] staff who are agents of the landlord.
The tenant advised in her statement that [the tenant’s relative 1] permanently vacated the premises on 29 March 2025. The law
Section 55 (1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that: ...the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons: (i) the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family: (ii) the owner of the premises or any member of the owner’s family: (iii) any agent of the landlord: (iv) any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part: (iv) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
Assault is defined in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 as: [T]he 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
Importantly, a threat of assault is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force and does not require an intention or capacity to act on the threat or that the threat is passed to the person to whom the threat related.
The standard of proof in this jurisdiction is the civil standard - the balance of probabilities. An allegation of a threat of an assault is however serious and, although the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) does not apply, there are many court decisions that emphasise the need for a high standard of evidence to prove such a serious allegation.
In considering section 55(1)(c) and section 41 I have reached the conclusion that the tenant cannot be held responsible for the actions of [the tenant’s relative 2]. He was not in the premises with the tenant’s permission and the tenant has not caused or permitted him to threaten to assault any agent of the landlord.
In relation to the second incident [the tenant’s relative 1] was at the premises with the tenant’s permission as confirmed by the tenant in her statement. The issue to consider is whether [the tenant’s relative 1] has threatened to assault any agent of the landlord. I consider that the Facebook page does threaten to assault [The property management company 1] employees who are agents of the landlord.
While there has been a threat to assault section 55(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides the Tribunal with a discretion to refuse to order termination in such cases 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 of a kind to which this section applies (but see also section 78A(3)(b)).
In the High Court decision of Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd CIV-2004-409- 717, Keane J discussed the exercise of the discretion and stated: [37] ... A threat once made, or an assault once committed, cannot be remedied. But I am loathe to conclude that, once the Tribunal finds as a fact a threat or an assault, the discretion becomes spent. That could mean that a technical assault, or words in haste, could pre-empt the Tribunal from considering the two remaining issues s 55(2) presents, which are of equal significance. [38] I prefer the interpretation that, if the breach cannot be remedied, that issue is to be set to one side and the Tribunal is to consider the two remaining issues. There may well be cases where the Tribunal concludes, despite the fact of breach, the landlord can be compensated for any loss, and there is unlikely to be any further breach. The Tribunal might then well be justified in deciding to refuse to make the otherwise mandatory order. [39] Of those two conditions, only the third is of significance in this case. There is no question of compensation for loss. But, to be satisfied as to that, the Tribunal did have to assess Mr Collins and whether he was likely to be threatening again. ...
In Collins v Housing NZ the tenant made a threat of assault in relation to the landlord’s agent by telephone to the agent’s father. In that case the court said that how incapacitated the tenant may have been considered by medical evidence which was not available.
In applying section 55(2) to this situation there is also no question of compensation for loss. In considering the third condition the issues that are relevant are that [the tenant’s relative 1] was not aware of the landlord’s notice to enter, as the tenant did not pass on advice of the inspection, and [the tenant’s relative 1] had mental health issues which may have influenced her reaction to waking to find a property manager inside the premises. But most importantly [the tenant’s relative 1] vacated the premises within days of the incident which means that she is unlikely to be threatening again.
While I understand that there are criminal proceedings involving [the tenant’s relative 2] and the incident where he was involved, there are no charges against [the tenant’s relative 2]. The conclusion I reach is that the threat by [the tenant’s relative 2] is more serious than the threat by [the tenant’s relative 1].
In the circumstances I consider this to be a case where the discretion is appropriate, and I refuse to terminate the tenancy. The landlord’s application for termination due to a threat of assault is dismissed. Tenant’s application
The tenant applied for a declaration pursuant to section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 54 provides that the Tribunal may declare a notice retaliatory where the Tribunal is satisfied that in giving the notice the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant or any right, power, authority, ore remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this Act or by ay complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy. If the notice is declared retaliatory then it is to be of no effect.
On 7 February 2025 the landlord gave 90 days’ notice to the tenant for the tenancy to end on 8 May 2025 pursuant to section 51(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It was not clear at the hearing whether this is the notice that the tenant sought to be declared retaliatory. That is because in the tenant’s submissions filed for the hearing it states 1 that the declaration of retaliation is sought in respect of the landlord’s application for termination.
Section 54 relates to a notice given by a landlord rather than the filing of an application. The Tribunal does not have the ability to declare that an application filed by a party is retaliatory.
Even if the tenant sought that a declaration that the notice dated 7 February 2025 was retaliatory the application would fail because of section 54(3) of the 1 At clause 2.2, page 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which states that, “If the tenant makes the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice, the tenant may at the same time apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect.”
The notice was dated 7 February 2025 so any application seeking a declaration that it is retaliatory would need to have been filed by 19 March 2025. The tenant’s application was filed on 30 April 2025. The tenant’s application for a declaration pursuant to section 54 is dismissed.
At the conclusion of the hearing held on 8 May 2025 (the day the tenancy was to terminate pursuant to the notice given by the landlord on 7 February 2025) I directed that the notice was suspended and not able to be enforced pending release of this decision. Now that this decision has been released and given that the tenant’s application was dismissed the suspension is lifted and that notice may be enforced. Suppression
While neither party has sought suppression, on the Tribunal’s initiative (section 95A(4)), I consider that as both applications have been unsuccessful and having regards to the interests of the parties and the public interest the names of the parties and the address should be suppressed. In addition, I suppress the names of [the tenant’s relative 2], [the tenant’s relative 1] as well as [The property management company 2].

Tenancy Tribunal case 5249731 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5249731 — 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