What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4710749?

The tribunal order states: The application by the Tenant is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4710749?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4710749?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4710749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10196677-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4710749?

The tribunal order states: The application by the Tenant is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4710749?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4710749?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4710749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10196677-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 4, 24 Tawa Road, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4710749 — Harassment

Order

The application by the Tenant is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tenant attended with a Mandarin interpreter, his wife and his two children.
The Tenant applied for work orders, compensation and refund of the bond. At the hearing, the Tenant withdrew their claim for work orders to fix the oven as the Tenants had vacated the property.
The Tenants also requested to add a further two new claims for the property being ‘unhealthy’ and for insult and harassment by the Landlord to the Tenant however the Tribunal declined to hear any new claims.
The tenancy started on 2 September 2023. It was fixed to 2 March 2024 however ended earlier by agreement on 16 November 2023. The property was fully furnished and two-bedroom.
At the start of the hearing, the Landlord referred to some lengthy submissions in support of his argument which were only provided to the Tribunal and Tenant at the hearing. The Tenant required translation into Mandarin.
Because the Tenant continually interrupted the Interpreter whilst he was translating the submissions, the translation of the Landlord’s documents took a considerable amount of time at the hearing. Tenants claims- failure to lodge the bond
The Tenant claimed compensation for the Landlord failing to lodge the bond on time. The Tenant submitted they paid the bond on 26 August 2023 to the landlord and this was not lodged within the 23 working days. The Tenant repeatedly asked the Landlord for proof of payment however they were ignored. The Landlord provided correspondence from Tenancy Services confirming the payment of the bond to the Bond Centre on 3 October 2023.
The Tenant submitted the bond amount of $3200.00 was excessive and seemed to be for the whole property rather than the one bedroom they were renting. The Tenant submitted they should be charged $800.00 for the bond instead. The Tenant stated the Landlord had misleading behaviour.
The Landlord disputed this and submitted they received the bond payment on 1 September 2023. The Tenant moved into the property and after one week advised the Landlord he wanted to move out to a cheaper place after he enrolled his children into the local school. Because of this change in mind, the bond was not lodged until 3 October 2023 however it was still within the 23 day timeframe.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has lodged the bond within the 23 working day time frame because although the Tenant paid the Landlord in August 2023, this is before the tenancy commenced. The Landlord had from the 2 September 2023 to count the 23 working days and so they were not late lodging the bond.
The claim for late filing is dismissed. Claim for assault upon the Tenant
The Tenant claimed compensation because the Landlord assaulted him. The Tenant claimed on 3 October 2023, the Landlord turned up to his property at
00am without notice. The night before, the Tenant submitted the Landlord went to the property they argued when the Tenant raised the bond money. The Landlord said “Don’t make me crazy man”. On 3 October 2023, the Tenant submitted he opened the front door and the Landlord was yelling “rent, rent, rent”. The Tenant was unable to understand English and described the Landlord as very angry. The Landlord then lunged at the Tenant and punched him in the chin. He also spat at the Tenant’s face and left. After that he came back and knocked again on the door. This time he stood back from the door and mumbled “rent” again. As the Tenants could not communicate, they rang some family friends to get help to call the police.
The Police arrived however the Landlord reported that the Tenant slammed his hand through the door. As a result of the Landlord’s violence, the Tenant suffered from a loose upper tooth and a broken tooth fell out. He did not visit a Dentist or report this to the Doctor. No photographs were taken of his injuries and no statements from witnesses were provided.
The Tenant is concerned that this violence will escalate and his children will become harmed. The Tenant seeks a full refund of the rent, costs for legal proceedings and relocation as compensation. On 25 October 2023, the Tenant was arrested and charged with grievous bodily harm.
The Landlord disputed this stating that he went over to show the Tenant how to get the hot water cylinder working as he had spoken to the Tenant the night before about this issue. He turned up at 8.00am that morning and the Tenant answered the door. The Landlord pointed at the hot water cylinder at which point the Tenant slammed the sliding door on his finger. The Landlord pushed the Tenant’s chest in response. The Landlord managed to remove his hand and then left the property immediately. The Landlord recalls at one stage, the Tenant’s wife came out and pushed the Tenant aside in an effort to de-escalate the situation. As a result of this, the landlord suffered injury to his fingers which included swelling and bruising. He reported this to Police and a Police report was filed. The Landlord submits the Police told him he was justified in his actions as these were ‘proportionate to the actions taken by the Tenant’.
The Police subsequently charged the Tenant for grievous bodily harm and threatening to kill. The whole ordeal has been very unsettling for the Landlord. The proceedings for this criminal matter are still current.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlords evidence is more credible regarding the violence that happened on 3 October 2023. The Landlord conceded he pushed the Tenant in self-defence and that he attended the property to show the Tenant how to work the hot water cylinder. The Tenants version of events stating the Landlord punched his face because the Tenant was not paying rent does not seem plausible. The Landlord has also provided a police report to substantiate his version of events.
The Tenant during the hearing became difficult to work with as the Interpreter was reading the Landlord’s documents to him. Initially, the Tenant claimed he needed word for word translations in the hearing. As the Interpreter began translating, the Tenant submitted he did not understand why he needed to read the Landlord’s evidence and asked repeatedly if he could have his say. He also repeatedly interrupted the Interpreter to voice his opinion to the translation despite the Tribunal repeatedly advising the Tenant to just listen. The Interpreter had to pause at one stage because it appeared the Tenant would point at some English words as if he understood some of the text already. This raised inconsistencies in the Tenants submission that they could not understand any English. The Tenant had had verbal conversations previously with the Landlord regarding the children’s schooling and property maintenance. It is these observations in the Tenants behaviour that raise some doubt as to the truthfulness of the Tenant’s account.
For these reasons, the claim for assault is dismissed.
As the Tenant has not been successful in these proceedings, name suppression is not granted to the Tenant.

Order

The application by the Tenant is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tenant attended with a Mandarin interpreter, his wife and his two children.
The Tenant applied for work orders, compensation and refund of the bond. At the hearing, the Tenant withdrew their claim for work orders to fix the oven as the Tenants had vacated the property.
The Tenants also requested to add a further two new claims for the property being ‘unhealthy’ and for insult and harassment by the Landlord to the Tenant however the Tribunal declined to hear any new claims.
The tenancy started on 2 September 2023. It was fixed to 2 March 2024 however ended earlier by agreement on 16 November 2023. The property was fully furnished and two-bedroom.
At the start of the hearing, the Landlord referred to some lengthy submissions in support of his argument which were only provided to the Tribunal and Tenant at the hearing. The Tenant required translation into Mandarin.
Because the Tenant continually interrupted the Interpreter whilst he was translating the submissions, the translation of the Landlord’s documents took a considerable amount of time at the hearing. Tenants claims- failure to lodge the bond
The Tenant claimed compensation for the Landlord failing to lodge the bond on time. The Tenant submitted they paid the bond on 26 August 2023 to the landlord and this was not lodged within the 23 working days. The Tenant repeatedly asked the Landlord for proof of payment however they were ignored. The Landlord provided correspondence from Tenancy Services confirming the payment of the bond to the Bond Centre on 3 October 2023.
The Tenant submitted the bond amount of $3200.00 was excessive and seemed to be for the whole property rather than the one bedroom they were renting. The Tenant submitted they should be charged $800.00 for the bond instead. The Tenant stated the Landlord had misleading behaviour.
The Landlord disputed this and submitted they received the bond payment on 1 September 2023. The Tenant moved into the property and after one week advised the Landlord he wanted to move out to a cheaper place after he enrolled his children into the local school. Because of this change in mind, the bond was not lodged until 3 October 2023 however it was still within the 23 day timeframe.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has lodged the bond within the 23 working day time frame because although the Tenant paid the Landlord in August 2023, this is before the tenancy commenced. The Landlord had from the 2 September 2023 to count the 23 working days and so they were not late lodging the bond.
The claim for late filing is dismissed. Claim for assault upon the Tenant
The Tenant claimed compensation because the Landlord assaulted him. The Tenant claimed on 3 October 2023, the Landlord turned up to his property at
00am without notice. The night before, the Tenant submitted the Landlord went to the property they argued when the Tenant raised the bond money. The Landlord said “Don’t make me crazy man”. On 3 October 2023, the Tenant submitted he opened the front door and the Landlord was yelling “rent, rent, rent”. The Tenant was unable to understand English and described the Landlord as very angry. The Landlord then lunged at the Tenant and punched him in the chin. He also spat at the Tenant’s face and left. After that he came back and knocked again on the door. This time he stood back from the door and mumbled “rent” again. As the Tenants could not communicate, they rang some family friends to get help to call the police.
The Police arrived however the Landlord reported that the Tenant slammed his hand through the door. As a result of the Landlord’s violence, the Tenant suffered from a loose upper tooth and a broken tooth fell out. He did not visit a Dentist or report this to the Doctor. No photographs were taken of his injuries and no statements from witnesses were provided.
The Tenant is concerned that this violence will escalate and his children will become harmed. The Tenant seeks a full refund of the rent, costs for legal proceedings and relocation as compensation. On 25 October 2023, the Tenant was arrested and charged with grievous bodily harm.
The Landlord disputed this stating that he went over to show the Tenant how to get the hot water cylinder working as he had spoken to the Tenant the night before about this issue. He turned up at 8.00am that morning and the Tenant answered the door. The Landlord pointed at the hot water cylinder at which point the Tenant slammed the sliding door on his finger. The Landlord pushed the Tenant’s chest in response. The Landlord managed to remove his hand and then left the property immediately. The Landlord recalls at one stage, the Tenant’s wife came out and pushed the Tenant aside in an effort to de-escalate the situation. As a result of this, the landlord suffered injury to his fingers which included swelling and bruising. He reported this to Police and a Police report was filed. The Landlord submits the Police told him he was justified in his actions as these were ‘proportionate to the actions taken by the Tenant’.
The Police subsequently charged the Tenant for grievous bodily harm and threatening to kill. The whole ordeal has been very unsettling for the Landlord. The proceedings for this criminal matter are still current.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlords evidence is more credible regarding the violence that happened on 3 October 2023. The Landlord conceded he pushed the Tenant in self-defence and that he attended the property to show the Tenant how to work the hot water cylinder. The Tenants version of events stating the Landlord punched his face because the Tenant was not paying rent does not seem plausible. The Landlord has also provided a police report to substantiate his version of events.
The Tenant during the hearing became difficult to work with as the Interpreter was reading the Landlord’s documents to him. Initially, the Tenant claimed he needed word for word translations in the hearing. As the Interpreter began translating, the Tenant submitted he did not understand why he needed to read the Landlord’s evidence and asked repeatedly if he could have his say. He also repeatedly interrupted the Interpreter to voice his opinion to the translation despite the Tribunal repeatedly advising the Tenant to just listen. The Interpreter had to pause at one stage because it appeared the Tenant would point at some English words as if he understood some of the text already. This raised inconsistencies in the Tenants submission that they could not understand any English. The Tenant had had verbal conversations previously with the Landlord regarding the children’s schooling and property maintenance. It is these observations in the Tenants behaviour that raise some doubt as to the truthfulness of the Tenant’s account.
For these reasons, the claim for assault is dismissed.
As the Tenant has not been successful in these proceedings, name suppression is not granted to the Tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4710749 — Harassment at Room 4, 24 Tawa Road, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4710749 — Harassment at Room 4, 24 Tawa Road, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions