What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4907896?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Henry Edmonds of Flat 4, 43 Maunu Road, Avenues, Whangarei

How much money was awarded in case 4907896?

Whangarei Agricultural & Pastoral So…: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4907896?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4907896?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10533918-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4907896?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Henry Edmonds of Flat 4, 43 Maunu Road, Avenues, Whangarei

How much money was awarded in case 4907896?

Whangarei Agricultural & Pastoral So…: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4907896?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4907896?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10533918-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 43 Maunu Road, Avenues, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4907896 — 14-day notice

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4907896. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Whangarei Agricultural & Pastoral Society at noon on Wednesday 2 October 2024. 2. Henry Edmonds must immediately pay the	$20.44		Whangarei Agricultural & Pastoral Society at noon on Wednesday 2 October 2024. 2. Henry Edmonds must immediately pay the

The tenancy of Henry Edmonds of Flat 4, 43 Maunu Road, Avenues, Whangarei 0110 is terminated, and possession is granted to the Whangarei Agricultural & Pastoral Society at noon on Wednesday 2 October 2024.

Henry Edmonds must immediately pay the filing fee of $20.44 to the Whangarei Agricultural & Pastoral Society.

Reasons

The landlord, and the tenant’s daughter and son in law attended the hearing, all by teleconference.

The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy on the grounds of threatened assault of a neighbour on 4/6/2024.

In support of the claim the landlord provided an email from the Health Officer in whose presence the threat was made and a Police report of the incident.

On the other hand, the tenant’s daughter and son in law cast doubt on the veracity of the landlord’s evidence and felt that the landlord had made assumptions about who the tenant may have threatened.

The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy if the tenant has assaulted, or threatened to assault, among others any neighbour of the premises. See Section 55(1)(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Section 55(2) provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order if satisfied the breach has been remedied, if it is capable of remedy, the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising and it is unlikely the tenant will commit any further breach.

I have carefully considered the evidence and submissions of both parties.

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 necessary for proof in a civil case.

I am persuaded by the email from the Health Officer that on 4/6/2024 the tenant threatened to “call some mates to mess” up a neighbour who he believed had made a complaint about his behaviour.

The intent of section 55 is to protect the classes of persons it refers to, in this case a neighbour.

In R v Meek [1981] 1 NZLR 499 the Court of Appeal discussed that a threat to assault was an expression of intent to do harm to someone by the use of force. There was no need to intend or have the capacity to act on the threat or for the threat to be passed on to the person to whom it related. The fact of a threat was enough.

However, although termination under section 55(1)(v) is mandatory it does not automatically follow that because I have found the tenant made a threat that the tenancy should be terminated.

I need to consider the discretion in section 55(2).

In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd CIV-2004-409-717 the High Court discussed that the preferred interpretation if a breach cannot be remedied, as is the case here, is to set that aside and consider the other two issues of compensation for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely the tenant would commit any further breach of the same kind.

There is no evidence of any loss from the breach, so no issue of compensation arises.

However, there is evidence of what could be described as anti-social behaviour by the tenant and his associates previously, in the form of a 14 day notice and verbal submissions of the landlord.

On balance I consider this is not a situation where I can be satisfied it is unlikely the tenant will commit any further breach.

The discretion not to terminate the tenancy cannot be exercised.

I have found section 55(1) applies, but subsection (2) does not.

The tenancy is terminated.

I have made the termination date 90 days from today because the landlord suggested they considered that amount of time reasonable in the circumstances.

As the landlord has been successful with the claim, I must award the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4907896. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Whangarei Agricultural & Pastoral Society at noon on Wednesday 2 October 2024. 2. Henry Edmonds must immediately pay the	$20.44		Whangarei Agricultural & Pastoral Society at noon on Wednesday 2 October 2024. 2. Henry Edmonds must immediately pay the

Order

The tenancy of Henry Edmonds of Flat 4, 43 Maunu Road, Avenues, Whangarei 0110 is terminated, and possession is granted to the Whangarei Agricultural & Pastoral Society at noon on Wednesday 2 October 2024.
Henry Edmonds must immediately pay the filing fee of $20.44 to the Whangarei Agricultural & Pastoral Society.

Reasons

The landlord, and the tenant’s daughter and son in law attended the hearing, all by teleconference.
The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy on the grounds of threatened assault of a neighbour on 4/6/2024.
In support of the claim the landlord provided an email from the Health Officer in whose presence the threat was made and a Police report of the incident.
On the other hand, the tenant’s daughter and son in law cast doubt on the veracity of the landlord’s evidence and felt that the landlord had made assumptions about who the tenant may have threatened.
The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy if the tenant has assaulted, or threatened to assault, among others any neighbour of the premises. See Section 55(1)(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 55(2) provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order if satisfied the breach has been remedied, if it is capable of remedy, the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising and it is unlikely the tenant will commit any further breach.
I have carefully considered the evidence and submissions of both parties.
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 necessary for proof in a civil case.
I am persuaded by the email from the Health Officer that on 4/6/2024 the tenant threatened to “call some mates to mess” up a neighbour who he believed had made a complaint about his behaviour.
The intent of section 55 is to protect the classes of persons it refers to, in this case a neighbour.
In R v Meek [1981] 1 NZLR 499 the Court of Appeal discussed that a threat to assault was an expression of intent to do harm to someone by the use of force. There was no need to intend or have the capacity to act on the threat or for the threat to be passed on to the person to whom it related. The fact of a threat was enough.
However, although termination under section 55(1)(v) is mandatory it does not automatically follow that because I have found the tenant made a threat that the tenancy should be terminated.
I need to consider the discretion in section 55(2).
In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd CIV-2004-409-717 the High Court discussed that the preferred interpretation if a breach cannot be remedied, as is the case here, is to set that aside and consider the other two issues of compensation for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely the tenant would commit any further breach of the same kind.
There is no evidence of any loss from the breach, so no issue of compensation arises.
However, there is evidence of what could be described as anti-social behaviour by the tenant and his associates previously, in the form of a 14 day notice and verbal submissions of the landlord.
On balance I consider this is not a situation where I can be satisfied it is unlikely the tenant will commit any further breach.
The discretion not to terminate the tenancy cannot be exercised.
I have found section 55(1) applies, but subsection (2) does not.
The tenancy is terminated.
I have made the termination date 90 days from today because the landlord suggested they considered that amount of time reasonable in the circumstances.
As the landlord has been successful with the claim, I must award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4907896 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 43 Maunu Road, Avenues, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4907896 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 43 Maunu Road, Avenues, Whangarei 0110

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