What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5380521 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] of 81 Poulson Street, Addington

How much money was awarded in case 5380521?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380521?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380521?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12815168-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5380521 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] of 81 Poulson Street, Addington

How much money was awarded in case 5380521?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380521?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380521?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12815168-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

81 Poulson Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5380521 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] of 81 Poulson Street, Addington Christchurch 8024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds of assault of a neighbour and her child.
Alternatively, the landlord seeks to end the tenancy for a breach that is incapable of remedy.
The periodic tenancy began on 15/9/2016.
The premises are one of a number of townhouses located in a row.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy if the tenant has assaulted, or threatened to assault, among others any occupier of the building of which the premises constitute a part or any neighbour of the premises. See Sections 55(1)(b)&(c)(iii)&(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 55(2) provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order if satisfied the breach has been remedied, if it is capable of remedy, the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising and it is unlikely the tenant will commit any further breach.
I have carefully considered the evidence and submissions of both parties and the witness.
However, unfortunately I was unable to access the video downloaded by the landlord.
The tenant did not dispute that she had pushed the neighbour’s child off his bike after several months of what she felt was provocative behaviour by the other tenant and her child.
The tenant suggested that the original Police charge of common assault had been downgraded to fighting in a public place and she had pleaded guilty to the charge of assaulting a child.
I did not find the verbal evidence of the witness, who is the other tenant involved, credible because she contradicted herself at times.
The intent of section 55 is to protect the classes of persons it refers to, in this case other tenants.
In R v Meek [1981] 1 NZLR 499 the Court of Appeal discussed that a threat to assault was an expression of intent to do harm to someone by the use of force. There was no need to intend or have the capacity to act on the threat or for the threat to be passed on to the person to whom it related. The fact of a threat was enough.
The claim under section 55(1)(c)(v) is successful because there is no dispute that an assault occurred.
However, although termination under section 55(1)(c) is mandatory it does not automatically follow that because I have found the tenant assaulted a neighbour’s child that termination should be granted.
I must look at the issue of discretion.

Should the discretion not to terminate the tenancy be exercised?

Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The evidence supports that the tenant breached her obligations by causing or permitting, or both, an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of another of the landlord’s tenants in the use of the premises, or with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of other persons residing in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c).
In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd CIV-2004-409-717 the High Court discussed that the preferred interpretation if a breach cannot be remedied, as is the case here, is to set that aside and consider the other two issues of compensation for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely the tenant would commit any further breach of the same kind.
There is no evidence of any loss from the breach, so no issue of compensation arises.
However, there is evidence of what could be described as anti-social behaviour by the tenant in the form of a 14 day notice on 13/8/2025 about threats to a neighbour’s dog and two anti-social behaviour notices on 19/9/2025 and 13/10/2025 respectively about verbal altercations with neighbours.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the Court at paragraph 61 set out the factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with her obligations in the future d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed e. The conduct of the landlord f. The gravity of the breach g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The tenancy began on 15/1/2016 and is therefore of considerable length.
There is no evidence of repeated warnings to the tenant before August this year, two months after the other tenant moved into another townhouse in the row.
Considering the evidence of the tenant and the witness about the personal relationship between them it is unlikely the tenant will comply with her obligations in the future.
Although the tenant expressed remorse about the assault, I consider the breach was deliberate.
There is no suggestion that the conduct of the landlord was in any way inappropriate.
Despite the downgrading of the charges and possibly provocation an assault on a child is very serious.
The question for the Tribunal is having established that the tenant breached her obligations under the legislation, is whether as a matter of proportionality termination is an inequitable response having regard to the tenant’s conduct throughout the tenancy and the likelihood of her complying in the future.
Termination of a tenancy has serious consequences for a tenant.
Unfortunate as it may be for the tenant I consider having regard to the facts of this case, in particular the assault on the child, that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The tenancy is terminated immediately, and possession granted to the landlord.
The landlord did not seek the filing fee or name suppression.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] of 81 Poulson Street, Addington Christchurch 8024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds of assault of a neighbour and her child.
Alternatively, the landlord seeks to end the tenancy for a breach that is incapable of remedy.
The periodic tenancy began on 15/9/2016.
The premises are one of a number of townhouses located in a row.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy if the tenant has assaulted, or threatened to assault, among others any occupier of the building of which the premises constitute a part or any neighbour of the premises. See Sections 55(1)(b)&(c)(iii)&(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 55(2) provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order if satisfied the breach has been remedied, if it is capable of remedy, the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising and it is unlikely the tenant will commit any further breach.
I have carefully considered the evidence and submissions of both parties and the witness.
However, unfortunately I was unable to access the video downloaded by the landlord.
The tenant did not dispute that she had pushed the neighbour’s child off his bike after several months of what she felt was provocative behaviour by the other tenant and her child.
The tenant suggested that the original Police charge of common assault had been downgraded to fighting in a public place and she had pleaded guilty to the charge of assaulting a child.
I did not find the verbal evidence of the witness, who is the other tenant involved, credible because she contradicted herself at times.
The intent of section 55 is to protect the classes of persons it refers to, in this case other tenants.
In R v Meek [1981] 1 NZLR 499 the Court of Appeal discussed that a threat to assault was an expression of intent to do harm to someone by the use of force. There was no need to intend or have the capacity to act on the threat or for the threat to be passed on to the person to whom it related. The fact of a threat was enough.
The claim under section 55(1)(c)(v) is successful because there is no dispute that an assault occurred.
However, although termination under section 55(1)(c) is mandatory it does not automatically follow that because I have found the tenant assaulted a neighbour’s child that termination should be granted.
I must look at the issue of discretion.

Should the discretion not to terminate the tenancy be exercised?

Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The evidence supports that the tenant breached her obligations by causing or permitting, or both, an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of another of the landlord’s tenants in the use of the premises, or with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of other persons residing in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c).
In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd CIV-2004-409-717 the High Court discussed that the preferred interpretation if a breach cannot be remedied, as is the case here, is to set that aside and consider the other two issues of compensation for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely the tenant would commit any further breach of the same kind.
There is no evidence of any loss from the breach, so no issue of compensation arises.
However, there is evidence of what could be described as anti-social behaviour by the tenant in the form of a 14 day notice on 13/8/2025 about threats to a neighbour’s dog and two anti-social behaviour notices on 19/9/2025 and 13/10/2025 respectively about verbal altercations with neighbours.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the Court at paragraph 61 set out the factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with her obligations in the future d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed e. The conduct of the landlord f. The gravity of the breach g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The tenancy began on 15/1/2016 and is therefore of considerable length.
There is no evidence of repeated warnings to the tenant before August this year, two months after the other tenant moved into another townhouse in the row.
Considering the evidence of the tenant and the witness about the personal relationship between them it is unlikely the tenant will comply with her obligations in the future.
Although the tenant expressed remorse about the assault, I consider the breach was deliberate.
There is no suggestion that the conduct of the landlord was in any way inappropriate.
Despite the downgrading of the charges and possibly provocation an assault on a child is very serious.
The question for the Tribunal is having established that the tenant breached her obligations under the legislation, is whether as a matter of proportionality termination is an inequitable response having regard to the tenant’s conduct throughout the tenancy and the likelihood of her complying in the future.
Termination of a tenancy has serious consequences for a tenant.
Unfortunate as it may be for the tenant I consider having regard to the facts of this case, in particular the assault on the child, that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The tenancy is terminated immediately, and possession granted to the landlord.
The landlord did not seek the filing fee or name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380521 — 14-day notice at 81 Poulson Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380521 — 14-day notice at 81 Poulson Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should the discretion not to terminate the tenancy be exercised?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should the discretion not to terminate the tenancy be exercised?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions