What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4837960?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4837960?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4837960?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4837960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10160071-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4837960?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4837960?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4837960?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4837960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10160071-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3B, 14 Inverness Avenue, Hamilton East, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 4837960 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord seeking to terminate the tenancy on the grounds of the tenant assaulting another tenant of the landlord.
Both parties appeared at the hearing today.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement has been provided. The agreement records that the tenant is Clayton Ngarotata TeRauana. The landlord is Linkpeople Limited.
The landlord’s position is that on 6 March 2024 the tenant assaulted another tenant of the complex. For the purpose of this written decision, I will refer to the other tenant as the ‘victim’. I note at this time, I accept this person was a tenant as described by the landlord, and I also accept he was assaulted, so being described as the victim of the assault would be accurate.
The landlord provided a security camera video recording. On that video I could see the victim at the top right hand corner of the video, and that he went into a door or similar, and appears to have been pushed backward forcefully, and struck the ground.
The landlord states that the victim needed to attend hospital due to the head injury sustained when he hit the ground banging his head on the concrete.
However what cannot be seen in the video, is who pushed the victim.
At the hearing today I asked the tenant what he knew about the assault, and he advised he did not assault the victim, nor did he know who did. The tenant states that the victim is the one causing problems at the tenancy, but he was firm in his evidence that it was not him.
The landlord acknowledged that the victim had not provided a statement, nor was he at the hearing to give evidence. The landlord is clear that the victim states it was the tenant who had assaulted him.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating evidence like statements or video recordings are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

ANALYSIS

Section 55 of the RTA states that the Tribunal “shall” make an order terminating the tenancy if satisfied that: The tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault...any of the following persons: (i)... (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.
Also relevant is section 56, which provides that Tribunal with the power to order a termination of the tenancy when the party has breached a provision of the tenancy agreement or RTA, and when the breach is of such a nature or such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to order termination of the tenancy.
As I have indicated above, I consider it very likely that the victim was assaulted by being pushed back onto the ground.
However the problem for the landlord with its claim, is that there is insufficient evidence for me to be satisfied to the balance of probabilities that it was the tenant who assaulted the victim. I have not received any evidence from the victim, and the officers of the landlord did not witness the assault, all they have been able to do is to pass on what they had been told by the victim.
While I recognise that the Police have declined to charge anyone in relation to the assault, that fact is not determinative. The Tenancy Tribunal applies the usual civil law standard, which as noted above is the balance of probabilities – fractionally more than 50% likelihood. That is a lower threshold than the criminal law standard which is evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, it is not necessary to have a criminal charge laid in order to be the foundation of an assault claim under the RTA in the Tribunal.
However, even when I consider this claim based on the lower balance of probabilities assessment, I must conclude the landlord has not established that it was the tenant who assaulted the victim.
Therefore this claim must be dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord seeking to terminate the tenancy on the grounds of the tenant assaulting another tenant of the landlord.
Both parties appeared at the hearing today.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement has been provided. The agreement records that the tenant is Clayton Ngarotata TeRauana. The landlord is Linkpeople Limited.
The landlord’s position is that on 6 March 2024 the tenant assaulted another tenant of the complex. For the purpose of this written decision, I will refer to the other tenant as the ‘victim’. I note at this time, I accept this person was a tenant as described by the landlord, and I also accept he was assaulted, so being described as the victim of the assault would be accurate.
The landlord provided a security camera video recording. On that video I could see the victim at the top right hand corner of the video, and that he went into a door or similar, and appears to have been pushed backward forcefully, and struck the ground.
The landlord states that the victim needed to attend hospital due to the head injury sustained when he hit the ground banging his head on the concrete.
However what cannot be seen in the video, is who pushed the victim.
At the hearing today I asked the tenant what he knew about the assault, and he advised he did not assault the victim, nor did he know who did. The tenant states that the victim is the one causing problems at the tenancy, but he was firm in his evidence that it was not him.
The landlord acknowledged that the victim had not provided a statement, nor was he at the hearing to give evidence. The landlord is clear that the victim states it was the tenant who had assaulted him.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating evidence like statements or video recordings are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

ANALYSIS

Section 55 of the RTA states that the Tribunal “shall” make an order terminating the tenancy if satisfied that: The tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault...any of the following persons: (i)... (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.
Also relevant is section 56, which provides that Tribunal with the power to order a termination of the tenancy when the party has breached a provision of the tenancy agreement or RTA, and when the breach is of such a nature or such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to order termination of the tenancy.
As I have indicated above, I consider it very likely that the victim was assaulted by being pushed back onto the ground.
However the problem for the landlord with its claim, is that there is insufficient evidence for me to be satisfied to the balance of probabilities that it was the tenant who assaulted the victim. I have not received any evidence from the victim, and the officers of the landlord did not witness the assault, all they have been able to do is to pass on what they had been told by the victim.
While I recognise that the Police have declined to charge anyone in relation to the assault, that fact is not determinative. The Tenancy Tribunal applies the usual civil law standard, which as noted above is the balance of probabilities – fractionally more than 50% likelihood. That is a lower threshold than the criminal law standard which is evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, it is not necessary to have a criminal charge laid in order to be the foundation of an assault claim under the RTA in the Tribunal.
However, even when I consider this claim based on the lower balance of probabilities assessment, I must conclude the landlord has not established that it was the tenant who assaulted the victim.
Therefore this claim must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4837960 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 3B, 14 Inverness Avenue, Hamilton East, Hamilton

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4837960 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 3B, 14 Inverness Avenue, Hamilton East, Hamilton

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions