What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4893205?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Vikia Benedict Ika Mataa'Ho Pailate-Mafi at Unit/Flat 5, 260

How much money was awarded in case 4893205?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4893205?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4893205?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10446753-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4893205?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Vikia Benedict Ika Mataa'Ho Pailate-Mafi at Unit/Flat 5, 260

How much money was awarded in case 4893205?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4893205?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4893205?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10446753-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 260 Mount Smart Road, Onehunga, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4893205 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Vikia Benedict Ika Mataa'Ho Pailate-Mafi at Unit/Flat 5, 260 Mount Smart Road, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 8pm Sunday 16 June 2024.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via video. The tenant did not join and two calls to him were made. After the first call went to voicemail, a brief message was left introducing myself and explaining the purpose of the call. The message concluded with the advice I would try a second time after waiting some minutes. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the delayed second call also went unanswered.
The landlord had applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations per s 55(1)(c) and s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: “It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
The tenancy commenced 23 June 2023. It is a premises in a large, multi-unit complex.
There were tenancy issues arising in late 2023 that continued into 2024. These pertained to noise disturbances from the tenant. Letters and a record of meeting evidence warnings to the tenant of the possibility of an application for termination if the behaviours continued. It is also apparent that the tenant was supported at the meeting by The Fono, a Pasifika for Pasifika health and social services hub. I was told they remain engaged with the tenant and have recently indicated to the landlord ongoing support for him if a termination order is made.
In March 2024 there was an escalation with threatening messages sent to a neighbour, followed in April 2024 by a force entry into the same neighbour’s premises. Should the tenancy be terminated per s 55(1)(c) RTA?
Section 55(1)(c) RTA provides for the termination of a tenancy where the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family, any agent of the landlord, or any neighbour of the premises.
The landlord claimed grounds for termination per this section after the tenant made what it considered by it to be threatening messages and actions towards the neighbour.
On 15 March 2024, Mr Mafi made serious threats to the neighbour via a messaging application. In these messages Mr Mafi stated, "I’m gonna get my Killa to shoot u". The messages were not provided to the landlord until 11 April 2024. If this was the only instance, the lack of immediate concern or action by the neighbour may have diminished the case for termination. Unfortunately, this was not the only instance.
The landlord submitted that on 9 April 2024, at approximately 1:00 am an incident unfolded involving the tenant and his neighbour (the same recipient of the earlier tenant threatening message). The tenant forcefully entered the residence of the neighbour despite his clear objections.
This was confirmed in a signed witness statement from the neighbour, dated 16 April 2024. In it he wrote:
At that time, the neighbour sought refuge with another neighbour and called the police. The police attended and assisted with a temporary relocation to a family member’s home. The landlord transferred him to another premises on 16 April 2024. The landlord stated the neighbour required the physical assistance of the local senior housing manager to return and retrieve his possessions due to a fear about returning.
A subsequent landlord request to the police for the release of official information regarding the event of 9 April 2024 was declined for operational reasons. The letter was provided and reads as confirmation of an event and the refusal to release details appears due to possible or pending police action, as at the date of the refusal letter.
The Tribunal must terminate the tenancy if it is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault any of the persons listed in s 55(1)(c) RTA.
In R v Meek [1981] 1 NZLR 499 (CA) the Court discussed what is meant by “threatened to assault” and considered that: “To threaten to assault means just what it says: It is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough. Even under the criminal law, there is no need to intend to act on the threat; or to have the capacity to act on it; or that it be passed on to the person to whom the threat relates.”
I am satisfied the actions of the tenant in sending at least one threatening message and then forcefully entering the neighbour’s premises, and his subsequent behaviours towards the occupant during this entry, means the grounds for termination per s 55(1(c)(v) 1 RTA are established, and the tenancy must be terminated.
Given the above determination, I do not consider any consideration of termination under s 56(1) RTA is required as the grounds for termination are already established.

Order

The tenancy of Vikia Benedict Ika Mataa'Ho Pailate-Mafi at Unit/Flat 5, 260 Mount Smart Road, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 8pm Sunday 16 June 2024.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via video. The tenant did not join and two calls to him were made. After the first call went to voicemail, a brief message was left introducing myself and explaining the purpose of the call. The message concluded with the advice I would try a second time after waiting some minutes. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the delayed second call also went unanswered.
The landlord had applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations per s 55(1)(c) and s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: “It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
The tenancy commenced 23 June 2023. It is a premises in a large, multi-unit complex.
There were tenancy issues arising in late 2023 that continued into 2024. These pertained to noise disturbances from the tenant. Letters and a record of meeting evidence warnings to the tenant of the possibility of an application for termination if the behaviours continued. It is also apparent that the tenant was supported at the meeting by The Fono, a Pasifika for Pasifika health and social services hub. I was told they remain engaged with the tenant and have recently indicated to the landlord ongoing support for him if a termination order is made.
In March 2024 there was an escalation with threatening messages sent to a neighbour, followed in April 2024 by a force entry into the same neighbour’s premises. Should the tenancy be terminated per s 55(1)(c) RTA?
Section 55(1)(c) RTA provides for the termination of a tenancy where the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family, any agent of the landlord, or any neighbour of the premises.
The landlord claimed grounds for termination per this section after the tenant made what it considered by it to be threatening messages and actions towards the neighbour.
On 15 March 2024, Mr Mafi made serious threats to the neighbour via a messaging application. In these messages Mr Mafi stated, "I’m gonna get my Killa to shoot u". The messages were not provided to the landlord until 11 April 2024. If this was the only instance, the lack of immediate concern or action by the neighbour may have diminished the case for termination. Unfortunately, this was not the only instance.
The landlord submitted that on 9 April 2024, at approximately 1:00 am an incident unfolded involving the tenant and his neighbour (the same recipient of the earlier tenant threatening message). The tenant forcefully entered the residence of the neighbour despite his clear objections.
This was confirmed in a signed witness statement from the neighbour, dated 16 April 2024. In it he wrote:
At that time, the neighbour sought refuge with another neighbour and called the police. The police attended and assisted with a temporary relocation to a family member’s home. The landlord transferred him to another premises on 16 April 2024. The landlord stated the neighbour required the physical assistance of the local senior housing manager to return and retrieve his possessions due to a fear about returning.
A subsequent landlord request to the police for the release of official information regarding the event of 9 April 2024 was declined for operational reasons. The letter was provided and reads as confirmation of an event and the refusal to release details appears due to possible or pending police action, as at the date of the refusal letter.
The Tribunal must terminate the tenancy if it is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault any of the persons listed in s 55(1)(c) RTA.
In R v Meek [1981] 1 NZLR 499 (CA) the Court discussed what is meant by “threatened to assault” and considered that: “To threaten to assault means just what it says: It is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough. Even under the criminal law, there is no need to intend to act on the threat; or to have the capacity to act on it; or that it be passed on to the person to whom the threat relates.”
I am satisfied the actions of the tenant in sending at least one threatening message and then forcefully entering the neighbour’s premises, and his subsequent behaviours towards the occupant during this entry, means the grounds for termination per s 55(1(c)(v) 1 RTA are established, and the tenancy must be terminated.
Given the above determination, I do not consider any consideration of termination under s 56(1) RTA is required as the grounds for termination are already established.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4893205 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 5, 260 Mount Smart Road, Onehunga, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4893205 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 5, 260 Mount Smart Road, Onehunga, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions