What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4961313?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Brent Hirini Ruri at Unit/Flat 4, 25 Eveleyn Couzins Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 4961313?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4961313?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4961313?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10746517-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4961313?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Brent Hirini Ruri at Unit/Flat 4, 25 Eveleyn Couzins Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 4961313?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4961313?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4961313?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10746517-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 25 Eveleyn Couzins Avenue, Richmond, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4961313 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by phone. Ms Eder represented the landlord. I heard witness evidence for the landlord from Ms Moore a senior housing support manager.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and for the tenant causing substantial damage to the premises. Grounds for terminating the tenancy

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.

However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.

Separate from that, the Tribunal must terminate a tenancy where a tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises.

The landlord has issued several breach notices for breaches by the tenant of his responsibilities and for anti-social behaviour.

The application is not based on anti-social behaviour for which notices were served but on more serious breaches that cannot be remedied and because the tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises. Evidence for the application

The incidents that have resulted in this application are numerous.

The landlord alleges that Mr Ruri set off the fire alarm in the communal area of the premises where other tenants gather to cook and socialise on 8 occasions between 9 November 2023 and 15 June 2024.

Ms Moore gave evidence that she viewed the CCTV footage for some of the incidents and observed Mr Ruri deliberately setting off the alarms. On other occasions he would leave his cooking unattended resulting in smoke activating the alarms. On some occasions he was observed smoking in the communal area.

Ms Moore said that the repeated Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) callouts were very disruptive for the other tenants, especially the elderly, as the callouts sometimes happened in the early hours of the morning. As a result, some of the tenants were anxious, hyper-vigilant, and could not sleep. She said the most recent fire alarm activation was on 1 August 2024.

Ms Moore said Mr Ruri had been banned from the common area but intimidated other residents, so they allowed him access.

Two affected tenants have provided written statements describing the effects of Mr Ruri’s behaviour on them. They feel intimidated and scared.

On 18 July 2024 Mr Ruri used a hammer to cause significant damage to parts of the common room and to chattels, recorded on CCTV. He broke the glass in the automatic doors, the CCTV cameras, the oven, and the fridge. The police were called, and he was arrested.

Ms Eder said that on 24 July 2024 Mr Ruri stole a couch from the common area which had not been returned.

Ms Eder said that on 31 December 2023, Mr Ruri broke into another unit after the tenant died and removed items. The police were called, and he was arrested and charged.

Ms Eder said that on several occasions Mr Ruri has approached single female tenants or tenants with children asking for entry to their units. Ms Moore said that as a result two of those tenants had moved out because they found Mr Ruri aggressive, and they were fearful.

Ms Moore said that overall, Mr Ruri’s behaviour had completely changed the environment of the complex which was a community of vulnerable people with both mental health and physical needs. Some people had left the community. Others would no longer use the common area due to Mr Ruri’s aggression which meant that community events, birthday parties and family events no longer happened. She said the effect of his behaviour had been profound. As she put it, the community was ‘100% changed’.

Ms Moore said if the tenancy were not terminated the residents feared a continuation of Mr Ruri’s intimidating behaviour and retaliation. The tenant’s response

Mr Ruri denied that he had done any of the things the landlord said he had done. He denied setting off the smoke alarms, causing any damage, stealing a couch, or breaking into another unit. When I asked him why he thought the landlord would have served so many breach notices on him he said he did not know why, nor could he understand why the landlord made the application. Findings

The evidence against Mr Ruri establishes on the balance of probabilities that he has caused multiple FENZ callouts due to setting off the smoke alarm, at times deliberately, and that he caused significant damage to the premises. The evidence also establishes that his behaviour is intimidating and frightening for some of the vulnerable residents who reside at this complex.

That the other tenants are no longer able to fully utilise the community room, denying them of the opportunity to attend social, educational, and family events is damning.

Mr Ruri’s blanket denial that he has caused any problems simply flies in the face of the video and documentary evidence, including the written statements of other tenants (too afraid to attend as witnesses) the CCTV evidence, and the records of fire alarm callouts.

This is not a case of ‘usual’ anti-social behaviour that requires the landlord to issue 3 separate breach notices within a defined period. Some of the breaches are breaches not capable of remedy (such as the repeated setting off of the smoke alarm). Causing substantial damage to the premises (which is defined in section 2 RTA as including any part of any premises) is a separate ground for termination under section 55(1)(b) RTA. Those incidents are the focus of this application.

While the Tribunal has a discretion under section 56 RTA not to terminate the tenancy, section 55(1)(b) provides that the Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy when a tenant has caused substantial damage. Shall means that it must.

But even under section 56, the Tribunal would not have exercised its discretion because the breaches cannot be remedied, and the Tribunal cannot be confident that Mr Ruri will cease his disruptive behaviour. If the tenancy were not terminated, the events described in evidence will almost certainly continue to happen and the other tenants, many vulnerable, will continue to live in fear. That cannot be allowed to continue.

The theft of a couch or breaking into a unit to take property are criminal matters not ones that would necessarily lead to the termination of the tenancy.

The allegation that Mr Ruri harassed female tenants would be seen as anti- social behaviour requiring 3 breach notices within a defined time to be served. Result

The landlord has proved its application to have the tenancy terminated for breaches not capable of remedy (the deliberate and continuing setting off of the smoke alarms) and for the tenant causing substantial damage to the premises.

I have therefore terminated the tenancy with possession to pass to the landlord at 11.59pm on Thursday 29 August 2024, that date suggested by Ms Eder.

The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.