What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5384721 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5384721?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384721?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384721?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12827752-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5384721 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5384721?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384721?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384721?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12827752-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Gowerton Place, Richmond, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5384721 — 14-day notice

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted by telephone.

The landlord has applied to terminate the tenancy under s55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Relevantly, the section requires the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy where the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault or caused or permitted any person to assault or threaten to assault any neighbour of the premises.

The landlord provided evidence that one of the tenant’s sons threatened to assault one of the landlord’s other tenants in the social housing development of which the premises is part. The son in not a tenant and does not live at the premises but he is often at the premises

The tenant did not make any threats and there is no evidence that she was involved in the alleged threats or was even present when the incident happened.

There is, therefore, an obvious problem with this application in terms of establishing that the tenant caused or permitted the alleged threatening behaviour.

I don’t accept that s41 of the Act assists the landlord in these circumstances. That provision makes the tenant responsible for actions constituting a breach of the tenancy agreement by people in the premises with the tenant’s permission. That is not what the Tribunal is concerned with here. This is not an alleged breach of the tenancy agreement. Section 55(1)(c) is a stand-alone provision that sets out the circumstances in which the Tribunal must terminate a tenancy. Section 41 cannot be used to extend the scope of s55(1)(c).

The landlord also relied on the tenant’s son’s criminal history and previous behaviour. There was no evidence of his criminal history before the Tribunal, but even if there were, it would not establish that the tenant caused or permitted his behaviour. The son’s previous alleged anti-social behaviour did not involve threating behaviour.

What is required to establish that the tenant caused or permitted the son to make relevant threats is, at least, that the tenant knew that her son was prone to make such threats, that she was not able to control his behaviour and that she allowed him on the premises in those circumstances.

Because the evidence cannot establish that, the application must be dismissed.

The tenant denied the version of events presented by the landlord. But she did not witness the incident. She was confident that her son will not engage in such behaviour. If that confidence is well placed, there should be no need for the landlord to make another application like this. If it is not well placed, the landlord will no doubt make another application, and the result of that application may be different from the result of this application.

The landlord’s witness said that there was continuing behaviour by the son that he felt was intimidating or oppressive. I would simply point out that there are other steps that the landlord can take in these circumstances, such as serving a breach notice or anti-social behaviour notices. That could lead to termination of the tenancy and the tenant should therefore ensure that her son does not engage in anti-social behaviour of any kind. I note that in relation to anti-social behaviour, the Act holds the tenant responsible for the actions of people in the premises with the tenant’s permission.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted by telephone.
The landlord has applied to terminate the tenancy under s55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Relevantly, the section requires the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy where the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault or caused or permitted any person to assault or threaten to assault any neighbour of the premises.
The landlord provided evidence that one of the tenant’s sons threatened to assault one of the landlord’s other tenants in the social housing development of which the premises is part. The son in not a tenant and does not live at the premises but he is often at the premises
The tenant did not make any threats and there is no evidence that she was involved in the alleged threats or was even present when the incident happened.
There is, therefore, an obvious problem with this application in terms of establishing that the tenant caused or permitted the alleged threatening behaviour.
I don’t accept that s41 of the Act assists the landlord in these circumstances. That provision makes the tenant responsible for actions constituting a breach of the tenancy agreement by people in the premises with the tenant’s permission. That is not what the Tribunal is concerned with here. This is not an alleged breach of the tenancy agreement. Section 55(1)(c) is a stand-alone provision that sets out the circumstances in which the Tribunal must terminate a tenancy. Section 41 cannot be used to extend the scope of s55(1)(c).
The landlord also relied on the tenant’s son’s criminal history and previous behaviour. There was no evidence of his criminal history before the Tribunal, but even if there were, it would not establish that the tenant caused or permitted his behaviour. The son’s previous alleged anti-social behaviour did not involve threating behaviour.
What is required to establish that the tenant caused or permitted the son to make relevant threats is, at least, that the tenant knew that her son was prone to make such threats, that she was not able to control his behaviour and that she allowed him on the premises in those circumstances.
Because the evidence cannot establish that, the application must be dismissed.
The tenant denied the version of events presented by the landlord. But she did not witness the incident. She was confident that her son will not engage in such behaviour. If that confidence is well placed, there should be no need for the landlord to make another application like this. If it is not well placed, the landlord will no doubt make another application, and the result of that application may be different from the result of this application.
The landlord’s witness said that there was continuing behaviour by the son that he felt was intimidating or oppressive. I would simply point out that there are other steps that the landlord can take in these circumstances, such as serving a breach notice or anti-social behaviour notices. That could lead to termination of the tenancy and the tenant should therefore ensure that her son does not engage in anti-social behaviour of any kind. I note that in relation to anti-social behaviour, the Act holds the tenant responsible for the actions of people in the premises with the tenant’s permission.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5384721 — 14-day notice at 2 Gowerton Place, Richmond, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5384721 — 14-day notice at 2 Gowerton Place, Richmond, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions