What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4827543?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4827543?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4827543?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4827543?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10165472-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4827543?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4827543?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4827543?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4827543?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10165472-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Gowerton Place, Richmond, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4827543 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of Mr Donaldson’s tenancy for assault.
The relevant part of section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states: 55Termination 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... (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)).
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The application arises from events in the afternoon of Christmas Eve 2023. The landlord alleges that the tenant assaulted three other tenants of this social housing complex. If that is proved, the RTA says that I shall terminate the tenancy, unless I am satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit a further breach of this kind. The other limbs of s55(2) RTA do not apply to this application.
I heard evidence from the three tenants who were alleged to have been assaulted; Mr BG, Mr S and Ms G. I also heard evidence from Mr Donaldson.
The witnesses were inconsistent, there were discrepancies between where events were alleged to have taken place, the timeline and who was present. Statements were taken by the landlord from Mr BG and Mr S at least two weeks after the events were alleged to have occurred. Ms G attended the hearing and gave evidence for the tenant.
Alcohol is likely to have been a factor in the events which unfolded on Christmas Eve although there was differing evidence about the amount consumed and by who. There were also inconsistencies over who was at Mr BG’s house when one of the assaults was alleged to have occurred. There seemed to be consensus that Mr Donaldson had been assaulted on Christmas Eve too, but a lack of clarity (or willingness to disclose) who committed the assault, or where that fitted into the timeline.
On balance, it was difficult for me to be satisfied that any of the evidence was reliable and even more difficult to prefer one witness over another. There was no corroborative video or photographic evidence, statements were not taken contemporaneously and, while the Police attended on Christmas Eve, no charges have been laid.
Where I have been unable to reconcile disputed or inconsistent evidence, I remind myself that the landlord has the onus of proving its claims. I also note the adjudicator’s comment in Wood and Dorrance v Rout [2021] NZTT Christchurch 4294149 “The standard of proof in a civil case such as this is the balance of probabilities. Where the allegation would amount to a criminal offence, there needs to be better evidence than would otherwise be needed for it to be proved. That is because criminal behaviour is less likely than non-criminal behaviour.”
Of the three assaults which are alleged to have occurred, I am only satisfied that Ms G was assaulted. She gave evidence that Mr Donaldson pushed her out of the way when she tried to intervene in an issue between him and his brother. That is assault, whether Ms G sees it that way or not.
I have considered whether I can apply the rationale in Wood and Dorrance v Rout [2021] NZTT Christchurch 4294149 paras [26] to [31] to decline to terminate the tenancy in this case. I have concluded that I cannot. This is a social housing complex; the safety of all tenants must be paramount.
The only discretion I have to refuse termination is set out in s55(2) RTA; can I be reasonably satisfied that the tenant will not commit another breach of this nature?
Ms G was supportive of the tenant. She said that the issues on Christmas Eve came about because of a lack of mental health support and that Mr Donaldson seemed to react when his brother came to stay with him. All witnesses said that there have not been any issues involving Mr Donaldson at the complex since Christmas Eve. It is now April. Mr Donaldson’s brother is no longer visiting him and has moved to Amberley.
The landlord pointed to other alleged incidents involving Mr Donaldson to show a pattern of behaviour. Those issues occurred in June 2023 and, even if proved, neither were allegations of assault.
Given the lapse of time between Christmas Eve and the hearing, and the fact that there have been no issues with Mr Donaldson’s behaviour at all in that period, I exercise the discretion in s55(2) and decline to terminate the tenancy.
Mr Donaldson should treat this as a final warning that violent or disruptive behaviour will not be tolerated. His tenancy is likely to be terminated if there are any further incidents of this nature.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of Mr Donaldson’s tenancy for assault.
The relevant part of section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states: 55Termination 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... (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)).
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The application arises from events in the afternoon of Christmas Eve 2023. The landlord alleges that the tenant assaulted three other tenants of this social housing complex. If that is proved, the RTA says that I shall terminate the tenancy, unless I am satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit a further breach of this kind. The other limbs of s55(2) RTA do not apply to this application.
I heard evidence from the three tenants who were alleged to have been assaulted; Mr BG, Mr S and Ms G. I also heard evidence from Mr Donaldson.
The witnesses were inconsistent, there were discrepancies between where events were alleged to have taken place, the timeline and who was present. Statements were taken by the landlord from Mr BG and Mr S at least two weeks after the events were alleged to have occurred. Ms G attended the hearing and gave evidence for the tenant.
Alcohol is likely to have been a factor in the events which unfolded on Christmas Eve although there was differing evidence about the amount consumed and by who. There were also inconsistencies over who was at Mr BG’s house when one of the assaults was alleged to have occurred. There seemed to be consensus that Mr Donaldson had been assaulted on Christmas Eve too, but a lack of clarity (or willingness to disclose) who committed the assault, or where that fitted into the timeline.
On balance, it was difficult for me to be satisfied that any of the evidence was reliable and even more difficult to prefer one witness over another. There was no corroborative video or photographic evidence, statements were not taken contemporaneously and, while the Police attended on Christmas Eve, no charges have been laid.
Where I have been unable to reconcile disputed or inconsistent evidence, I remind myself that the landlord has the onus of proving its claims. I also note the adjudicator’s comment in Wood and Dorrance v Rout [2021] NZTT Christchurch 4294149 “The standard of proof in a civil case such as this is the balance of probabilities. Where the allegation would amount to a criminal offence, there needs to be better evidence than would otherwise be needed for it to be proved. That is because criminal behaviour is less likely than non-criminal behaviour.”
Of the three assaults which are alleged to have occurred, I am only satisfied that Ms G was assaulted. She gave evidence that Mr Donaldson pushed her out of the way when she tried to intervene in an issue between him and his brother. That is assault, whether Ms G sees it that way or not.
I have considered whether I can apply the rationale in Wood and Dorrance v Rout [2021] NZTT Christchurch 4294149 paras [26] to [31] to decline to terminate the tenancy in this case. I have concluded that I cannot. This is a social housing complex; the safety of all tenants must be paramount.
The only discretion I have to refuse termination is set out in s55(2) RTA; can I be reasonably satisfied that the tenant will not commit another breach of this nature?
Ms G was supportive of the tenant. She said that the issues on Christmas Eve came about because of a lack of mental health support and that Mr Donaldson seemed to react when his brother came to stay with him. All witnesses said that there have not been any issues involving Mr Donaldson at the complex since Christmas Eve. It is now April. Mr Donaldson’s brother is no longer visiting him and has moved to Amberley.
The landlord pointed to other alleged incidents involving Mr Donaldson to show a pattern of behaviour. Those issues occurred in June 2023 and, even if proved, neither were allegations of assault.
Given the lapse of time between Christmas Eve and the hearing, and the fact that there have been no issues with Mr Donaldson’s behaviour at all in that period, I exercise the discretion in s55(2) and decline to terminate the tenancy.
Mr Donaldson should treat this as a final warning that violent or disruptive behaviour will not be tolerated. His tenancy is likely to be terminated if there are any further incidents of this nature.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4827543 — 14-day notice at 24 Gowerton Place, Richmond, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4827543 — 14-day notice at 24 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