What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279427 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 12, 151 Stanmore Road, Linwood,

How much money was awarded in case 5279427?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279427?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279427?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12190889-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279427 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 12, 151 Stanmore Road, Linwood,

How much money was awarded in case 5279427?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279427?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279427?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12190889-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 12, 151 Stanmore Road, Linwood, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5279427 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 12, 151 Stanmore Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8011, Haast Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on the 13 August2025.
This matter is determined as indicated by the orders above, but the landlord is granted a period up to the 13 August 2025 within which, if there are further instances of breaches by the tenant , they can request that the application be brought back before to the Tribunal to consider whether the tenancy should be terminated immediately and the matter will be re-opened.
[The tenant/s] is to pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust the filing fee of $27.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held by telephone today.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the following grounds: a. That the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault her neighbour, another tenant at the complex she lives in. (S 55(1)(c) RTA) b. That the tenant has breached the quiet enjoyment of her neighbours and other occupants at the complex she lives in and that this is breach that is incapable of remedy, and it is just and equitable to grant termination. (s40(2)(c) RTA and s56 RTA) c. That the tenant has breached the quiet enjoyment of her neighbours and other occupants at the complex she lives in and that this is breach that is capable of remedy, notice has been given, but the tenant has not remedied the breach (s56 RTA). d. That the tenant has breached the provision in the tenancy agreement that she does not park on the kerb or grass and that she continues to do so despite numerous 14 day notices having been given. Background.
The tenant is a young woman, who moved into the landlord’s social housing complex in January this year.
At first the tenant enjoyed a good relationship with one of her neighbours Mr M who lives two doors down in the same complex.
The tenant says that sometime in February 1 the relationship between her and Mr M soured and she became scared of him. The tenant says that Mr M had damaged her car, would stare at her and intimidate her.
The tenant says that she has not enjoyed living in complex because of the types of people who live in the area, one of whom (not Mr M) would come to her property and stare through her windows. The tenant says that a lot of homelessness and drugs are in the area. The tenant says that she would have to keep her curtains closed and has put signs on her front door to stop people bothering her or looking in her windows.
The tenant says that she became so scared that she would park her car on the curb outside her house, rather than in a designated parking space, so that she could quickly get into her home and that she could make sure that no one damaged her car. It was clear to me that the tenant’s car is very important to her.
On the 27 January, the tenant had parked on the curb, not in a parking space, this impeded Mr M’s ability to getting his car out, and in the course of getting his car out he backed into the tenant’s car damaging both her car and Mr M’s car. Mr M then got out and started throwing things at and damaging the tenant’s car causing significant damage. 1 It is likely to be before February as Mr M damaged the tenant’s car on the 27 January 2025.
As a result of that incident the Police were called, and Mr M has faced charges. The tenant put up a sign in her car, directed at Mr M that said “ my dumass nieghbour destroyed my car.”
Early on in the tenancy the tenant also erected a sign on the gate to a common area that told people not to use the area even though it was not her exclusive area.
The tenant also had a sign on her backdoor that read “stay the fuck away from me. I will slit throats you fucken perverts.” And another sign on the front door saying unless you have texted then you are not welcome or words to that effect.
Both Mr M and other neighbours complained to the landlord about the signs and the tenant was asked to remove them, but she refused. The incident on the 25 May.
On the 25 May 2025 a serious incident occurred at the complex. The tenant says that she was fed up with a Mr M making her feel unsafe in her home, and a perceived lack of action by the Police and her landlord to help her.
The tenant went to serve a Trespass Notice on Mr M. She took a video of her serving the notice. That video has been given to the Tribunal; it is 1.02 minutes long. It shows that the tenant took a knife with her when she affixed the notice to the door. It shows her knocking loudly and then start walking away. There is a brief verbal altercation where Mr M asks “what” and the tenant tells him to check his door. Mr M then says, “don’t give me a trespass notice.”
What happens next is disputed, Mr M says that the tenant waved the knife at him. The tenant says she did not show the knife to him, but that Mr M came for her and tackled her to the ground and believed that he would hurt her.
The tenant admits to making stabbing motions when on the ground but says that she did not stab Mr M. Mr M did not suffer any injuries. The tenant says she suffered bruising from being tackled to the ground. Mr M ran or cycled to the Police station to report the incident.
Mr M gave a statement of the incident to the landlord. In his statement he admits to tackling the tenant to the ground but says that is because he was fearful because she had a knife and he believed the tenant was about to rush towards him.
The tenant says she only took a knife to serve the trespass order because she was fearful, she never intended to use it and that there was no need for Mr M to tackle her to the ground because at the time she was going back to her home.
In the video, it is clear that at the time that Mr M came out of his home the tenant is facing him albeit a few metres away and filming him. When he starts advancing towards her, she is standing facing him filming. She then asks, “bro what the fuck are you doing”. The camera turns and screaming can be heard.
The Police attended the property, the tenant was not arrested, and neither was Mr M. However, the Police confiscated the tenant’s knife and a machete in her car.
Section 55 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides the Tribunal with the power to order termination of a tenancy in certain circumstances, including where there is an assault or threat to assault from the tenant. That provision says: 55 Termination on non-payment of rent, damage, or assault. (1) Subject to subsection (2), 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— (c) 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: (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part. (2) The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) 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)).
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. However, the intent of section 55(1)(c) is to protect the classes of persons referred to such as the landlord’s agent and neighbours. In this context, the fact of a threat is enough.
I am satisfied that the tenant has threatened to assault Mr M on the 25 May 2025 by bringing a knife to his property to serve the trespass order. I consider it more likely that the tenant did show Mr M the knife in her hand before he tackled her because the tenant shows the knife in her hand at the beginning of the video and uses her right hand to hold the trespass notice. When the tenant is walking away from Mr M’s door you can see her body, when she turns around and films Mr M she has the camera/ phone away from her. I consider that if she was holding her camera/phone in this way, then is likely she would be showing the knife at the same time in her hand, as recalled by Mr M in his statement to the landlord.
Whilst I do not necessarily agree that Mr M acted in self defence and that there was a need for him to accost the tenant, I do accept that the tenant was on common property outside Mr M’s home with a knife and was swearing at him and about him. I consider that the tenant’s actions at that point as a threat.
I also consider that the tenant’s message taped to her backdoor, which her neighbours could see, and which threatened to “slit throats you fucken perverts” is also a threat under s55 because it is an is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force.
The incident on the 25 May is not able to be remedied, the tenant could take down the sign on the door but has refused to do so. Even at today’s hearing she told me that the signs were necessary because they worked.
I am also not satisfied that the tenant would not commit another breach of this kind that occurred on the 25 May because she said at today’s hearing that she does not go outside without a knife , because she is scared.
I record that had I not terminated under s55, that I would have done so under s56. The tenant has refused to remove the signs that she has put on her doors, gate and car, which I consider are a breach of s40(2)(c) because of the language used. The tenant has been given numerous opportunities to remedy these breaches but has failed to do so.
I consider it just and equitable to terminate this tenancy under s56 RTA due to the nature of the breaches, the length of time that the breaches have occurred, and the continued non-compliance by the tenant.
It strikes me that this is a tenancy where there are two neighbours that cannot and should not live close by in the same complex. I am not saying that that is entirely this tenant’s fault. There is no dispute that Mr M damaged the tenant’s car, and I also considered his reaction to the tenant giving him a trespass notice to be explosive and somewhat aggressive. The tenant has also aggravated the situation by putting a sign up in her car calling her neighbour a ‘dumbass’ and putting up signs on her doors. There was no need for the tenant to serve the trespass order herself and there was certainly no need for her to arm herself with a weapon.
Having watched the video several times for this hearing, I am struck by how close this came to being a tragedy where one or the other did not lose their lives. It is unfair for all the occupants in this housing complex to live with this type of violence outside their homes.
That being said, I am also mindful of the tenant’s personal circumstances that have led her to come into social housing and that to terminate her tenancy immediately would render her homeless with little support.
I have therefore allowed a period of two weeks until the tenancy terminates. However, I make it clear if there are any further breaches within that time the landlord may come back with further breaches and evidence and ask for immediate termination and that is likely to be granted.
Because Otautahi Community Housing Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279427 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 12, 151 Stanmore Road, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279427 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 12, 151 Stanmore Road, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions