What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4878780?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of James Curran at Unit/Flat 13, 11 Kaumatua Place, Te Atatu

How much money was awarded in case 4878780?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4878780?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4878780?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10477700-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4878780?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of James Curran at Unit/Flat 13, 11 Kaumatua Place, Te Atatu

How much money was awarded in case 4878780?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4878780?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4878780?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10477700-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 13, 11 Kaumatua Place, Te Atatu Peninsula, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4878780 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of James Curran at Unit/Flat 13, 11 Kaumatua Place, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to Haumaru Housing Limited Partnership, at 11:59pm on Wednesday 19 June 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. An advocate for the tenant attended on his behalf as he had gone to Pak and Save in Lincoln Road, was not here for the first 30 minutes of the hearing and the hearing had to commence without him being present.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of the tenant physically assaulting the tenant in Flat 16.
Section 55(1)(c)(iv) of the RTA states 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 the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
The landlord states that on 1 May 2024 at 12:30pm, the tenant knocked on Flat 16’s door and when the tenant of Flat 16 opened the door, he struck her in the face, because he believed she had been in his flat and had taken his earphones. Further, when the Community Manager called him to speak to him about the incident, he swore at the Community Manager and verbally abused her but admitted that he had struck the tenant in Flat 16 in the face and then hung up.
The landlord says the tenant then rang the Community Manager back a while later and said he had “found his headphones” and “the lady tenant hadn’t taken them so all good”.
The landlord confirmed the tenant at Flat16 was very shaken by the incident and the landlord reported the assault to the New Zealand Police and produced evidence of the Police Report.
The tenant’s advocate stated that she had spoken to the tenant about the incident and he said he had knocked on the window of Flat 16 very loudly and when the Flat 16 tenant came to the door and saw who was there she tried to close the door again and he shoved her hand or arm away so she couldn’t shut the door as he was angry and wanted his headphones back. The tenant’s advocate also confirmed that he has not been visited by the Police over the incident so the incident couldn’t be that bad. She did accept that the tenant was angry and had “lost it” and it would have been frightening for the tenant in Flat 16. She also confirmed he has never struck a woman before, and she does not believe he assaulted the tenant of Flat 16.
The tenant’s advocate also confirmed that he gets agitated by the tenant of Flat 16 as he says she goes into his flat when he is not there and takes his food and belongings. He says he thinks she has a key from the previous tenant of his flat. She also stated a prior tenant, Eric, confirmed to her that he had seen the tenant of Flat 16 go into the tenant‘s flat when he was out and the tenant’s anger towards her is justified as he has had enough of her stealing him property.
The tenant’s advocate said the tenant of Flat 16 and the tenant got off on a bad footing when they first met as the tenant of Flat 16 had asked him to move some things to Papatoetoe for her daughter, and after initially agreeing he declined to do this.
The landlord confirmed the tenant of Flat 16 was very clear he scared her constantly and on 1 May 2024 he had struck her in the face for something she had not done. The landlord does not believe she was lying.
The landlord also confirmed that there had been a history of anti-social behaviour by the tenant towards the tenant of Flat 16 and that they had held a meeting with these two tenants in March 2023 to try to get the tenant to stop harassing the tenant of Flat 16. The two of them agreed to try to be civil to each other and to stop causing friction in the village. However, the tenant continued to scare and harass the tenant of Flat 16 as he thought she was taking his things when the landlord could find no evidence to support his claims.
The landlord also confirmed that not long after the tenant’s tenancy started in 2021, he had been paranoid about people coming into his flat, so they had changed the lock. Therefore, there was no way the tenant of Flat 16 could have been entering his locked flat when he was out to steal anything.
The tenant’s advocate stated she believed the tenant of Flat 16 was picking the lock on the tenant’s door and getting in as she believed the tenant that his personal property was being stolen by the tenant of Flat 16.
The landlord made it clear to me that the tenant of Flat 16 is living in fear of the tenant, that it has zero tolerance for violence and that it believes the tenant struck the tenant of Flat 16 in the face as he admitted doing so to the Community Manager straight after the event.
The tenant’s advocate said the tenant was so agitated and angry that day he does not remember talking to the Community Manager or what he said.
I have considered the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
The definition of assault is “the illegal act of causing physical harm or unwanted physical contact to another person”. I am satisfied that the tenant at the very minimum made unwanted physical contact to the tenant of Flat 16 and that whether he shoved her arm and/or hand to stop her shutting her door in fear of him or he struck her on the face, what he did amounts to an assault.
I am satisfied that the landlord has established that an assault on the tenant of Flat 16 has occurred on the premises by the tenant. The landlord has also served a notice about this unacceptable behaviour on the tenant. There seems to have been no difference in the tenant’s attitude towards the tenant of Flat 16. As such, the tenant of Flat 16 lives in fear he will assault her again.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA states the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Section 17(1)(a) of the HSAWA introduces the concept of a person conducting a business or undertaking (“PCBU”). Section 36(2) of the HSAWA imposes a duty of care on all PCBUs to ensure the health and safety of workers and other people who have contact with their business or undertaking. Under the HSAWA, landlords are regarded as PCBUs, subject to some exceptions. As such landlords have a primary duty to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of people affected by work on their property or by the other tenants in a village such as the one the tenants live in. This duty includes the landlord’s management and control of the premises, such as managing and controlling common areas such as carparks, stairwells, entrances and exits to the property and premises and the behavioural conduct of the other residents they are responsible for in the village.
Therefore, the landlord has a duty of care to the tenant of Flat 16 to, so far as reasonably practicable, ensure that the entries and exits, common areas, landlords’ fixtures, fittings, plant, structures and other tenants in the village do not pose health and safety risks to the tenant of Flat 16 and any other residents of the village and the neighbours.
What is considered “reasonably practicable” depends on the circumstances and factors to be taken into account by the landlord include: a. The likelihood of the risk or hazard occurring; b. The degree of harm that might result from the risk or hazard; c. What is known, or would be reasonably expected to be known, about a risk or hazard; d. How to eliminate or minimise the risk, and the costs of doing so.
I find that on the balance of probabilities the assault occurred, and it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy considering the circumstances in which the behaviour arose, the history of the tenant getting agitated by the tenant of Flat 16 every time she leaves her flat and the likelihood a further assault may occur.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The tenancy is terminated because the tenant assaulted the tenant of Flat 16 on 1 May 2024 at 12:30pm. There is no excuse for him laying a hand on her when he is agitated and angry. The tenant of Flat 16 cannot be expected to live in an environment where she is in fear of harassment and assault by a fellow tenant of the village. The landlord has an obligation to take all reasonably practicable steps to keep all its tenants in the village safe from harm, pursuant to the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.
The tenant’s tenancy is terminated pursuant to s55(1)(c)(iv) of the RTA for the reasons set out above.

Order

The tenancy of James Curran at Unit/Flat 13, 11 Kaumatua Place, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to Haumaru Housing Limited Partnership, at 11:59pm on Wednesday 19 June 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. An advocate for the tenant attended on his behalf as he had gone to Pak and Save in Lincoln Road, was not here for the first 30 minutes of the hearing and the hearing had to commence without him being present.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of the tenant physically assaulting the tenant in Flat 16.
Section 55(1)(c)(iv) of the RTA states 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 the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
The landlord states that on 1 May 2024 at 12:30pm, the tenant knocked on Flat 16’s door and when the tenant of Flat 16 opened the door, he struck her in the face, because he believed she had been in his flat and had taken his earphones. Further, when the Community Manager called him to speak to him about the incident, he swore at the Community Manager and verbally abused her but admitted that he had struck the tenant in Flat 16 in the face and then hung up.
The landlord says the tenant then rang the Community Manager back a while later and said he had “found his headphones” and “the lady tenant hadn’t taken them so all good”.
The landlord confirmed the tenant at Flat16 was very shaken by the incident and the landlord reported the assault to the New Zealand Police and produced evidence of the Police Report.
The tenant’s advocate stated that she had spoken to the tenant about the incident and he said he had knocked on the window of Flat 16 very loudly and when the Flat 16 tenant came to the door and saw who was there she tried to close the door again and he shoved her hand or arm away so she couldn’t shut the door as he was angry and wanted his headphones back. The tenant’s advocate also confirmed that he has not been visited by the Police over the incident so the incident couldn’t be that bad. She did accept that the tenant was angry and had “lost it” and it would have been frightening for the tenant in Flat 16. She also confirmed he has never struck a woman before, and she does not believe he assaulted the tenant of Flat 16.
The tenant’s advocate also confirmed that he gets agitated by the tenant of Flat 16 as he says she goes into his flat when he is not there and takes his food and belongings. He says he thinks she has a key from the previous tenant of his flat. She also stated a prior tenant, Eric, confirmed to her that he had seen the tenant of Flat 16 go into the tenant‘s flat when he was out and the tenant’s anger towards her is justified as he has had enough of her stealing him property.
The tenant’s advocate said the tenant of Flat 16 and the tenant got off on a bad footing when they first met as the tenant of Flat 16 had asked him to move some things to Papatoetoe for her daughter, and after initially agreeing he declined to do this.
The landlord confirmed the tenant of Flat 16 was very clear he scared her constantly and on 1 May 2024 he had struck her in the face for something she had not done. The landlord does not believe she was lying.
The landlord also confirmed that there had been a history of anti-social behaviour by the tenant towards the tenant of Flat 16 and that they had held a meeting with these two tenants in March 2023 to try to get the tenant to stop harassing the tenant of Flat 16. The two of them agreed to try to be civil to each other and to stop causing friction in the village. However, the tenant continued to scare and harass the tenant of Flat 16 as he thought she was taking his things when the landlord could find no evidence to support his claims.
The landlord also confirmed that not long after the tenant’s tenancy started in 2021, he had been paranoid about people coming into his flat, so they had changed the lock. Therefore, there was no way the tenant of Flat 16 could have been entering his locked flat when he was out to steal anything.
The tenant’s advocate stated she believed the tenant of Flat 16 was picking the lock on the tenant’s door and getting in as she believed the tenant that his personal property was being stolen by the tenant of Flat 16.
The landlord made it clear to me that the tenant of Flat 16 is living in fear of the tenant, that it has zero tolerance for violence and that it believes the tenant struck the tenant of Flat 16 in the face as he admitted doing so to the Community Manager straight after the event.
The tenant’s advocate said the tenant was so agitated and angry that day he does not remember talking to the Community Manager or what he said.
I have considered the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
The definition of assault is “the illegal act of causing physical harm or unwanted physical contact to another person”. I am satisfied that the tenant at the very minimum made unwanted physical contact to the tenant of Flat 16 and that whether he shoved her arm and/or hand to stop her shutting her door in fear of him or he struck her on the face, what he did amounts to an assault.
I am satisfied that the landlord has established that an assault on the tenant of Flat 16 has occurred on the premises by the tenant. The landlord has also served a notice about this unacceptable behaviour on the tenant. There seems to have been no difference in the tenant’s attitude towards the tenant of Flat 16. As such, the tenant of Flat 16 lives in fear he will assault her again.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA states the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Section 17(1)(a) of the HSAWA introduces the concept of a person conducting a business or undertaking (“PCBU”). Section 36(2) of the HSAWA imposes a duty of care on all PCBUs to ensure the health and safety of workers and other people who have contact with their business or undertaking. Under the HSAWA, landlords are regarded as PCBUs, subject to some exceptions. As such landlords have a primary duty to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of people affected by work on their property or by the other tenants in a village such as the one the tenants live in. This duty includes the landlord’s management and control of the premises, such as managing and controlling common areas such as carparks, stairwells, entrances and exits to the property and premises and the behavioural conduct of the other residents they are responsible for in the village.
Therefore, the landlord has a duty of care to the tenant of Flat 16 to, so far as reasonably practicable, ensure that the entries and exits, common areas, landlords’ fixtures, fittings, plant, structures and other tenants in the village do not pose health and safety risks to the tenant of Flat 16 and any other residents of the village and the neighbours.
What is considered “reasonably practicable” depends on the circumstances and factors to be taken into account by the landlord include: a. The likelihood of the risk or hazard occurring; b. The degree of harm that might result from the risk or hazard; c. What is known, or would be reasonably expected to be known, about a risk or hazard; d. How to eliminate or minimise the risk, and the costs of doing so.
I find that on the balance of probabilities the assault occurred, and it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy considering the circumstances in which the behaviour arose, the history of the tenant getting agitated by the tenant of Flat 16 every time she leaves her flat and the likelihood a further assault may occur.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The tenancy is terminated because the tenant assaulted the tenant of Flat 16 on 1 May 2024 at 12:30pm. There is no excuse for him laying a hand on her when he is agitated and angry. The tenant of Flat 16 cannot be expected to live in an environment where she is in fear of harassment and assault by a fellow tenant of the village. The landlord has an obligation to take all reasonably practicable steps to keep all its tenants in the village safe from harm, pursuant to the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.
The tenant’s tenancy is terminated pursuant to s55(1)(c)(iv) of the RTA for the reasons set out above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4878780 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 13, 11 Kaumatua Place, Te Atatu Peninsula,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4878780 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 13, 11 Kaumatua Place, Te Atatu Peninsula,

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