What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5026588?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Matthew Leadbetter at 24 Huggins Place, Edgeware,

How much money was awarded in case 5026588?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5026588?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5026588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10970902-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5026588?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Matthew Leadbetter at 24 Huggins Place, Edgeware,

How much money was awarded in case 5026588?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5026588?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5026588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10970902-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Huggins Place, Edgeware, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5026588 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5026588. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 5.00pm on Sunday 20 October 2024. 2. Matthew Leadbetter is to pay the filing fee	$27.00		to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 5.00pm on Sunday 20 October 2024. 2. Matthew Leadbetter is to pay the filing fee

The tenancy of Matthew Leadbetter at 24 Huggins Place, Edgeware, Christchurch 8013 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 5.00pm on Sunday 20 October 2024.

Matthew Leadbetter is to pay the filing fee of $27.00 to Otautahi Community Housing Trust immediately.

Reasons

Mr Olds and Mr Woodbury attended on behalf of the landlord.

The tenant did not attend the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and refund of the filing fee. Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55(1)(c)(iii)?

The landlord seeks to terminate the tenancy on the basis of threats made to an employee of the landlord.

The relevant part of section 55(1) of the Act states: (1) 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 that – ... (c) The tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons: i.the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family: ii.the owner of the premises or any member of the owner’s family: iii.any agent of the landlord: 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.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

In assessing whether the standard is satisfied, the Tribunal must determine whether the evidence provided to support the allegations is strong enough given the seriousness of those allegations and the consequences of accepting them as true.

In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd HC Christchurch, CIV-2004-409-717, 2 July 2004, Justice Keane said that; To “threaten to assault” means just what it says: it is an expression of an intent to do harm to another person by use of force.

The threats were made by telephone when the tenant said, in relation to an employee of the landlord, that he would “stab her” and then later repeated that he would, “f****** stab that c***” before the call was terminated.

The landlord provided evidence of the threats made which included recordings of the phone call in which the threats were made and witness evidence from the telephonist who took the call and the victim of the threats (the victim).

The tenant identified himself clearly in the phone call and the call was made from the cell phone number he had provided to the landlord as his contact number.

When an agent of the landlord contacted him later, he acknowledged having made the call and also acknowledged having made the threats.

The threats were clearly made twice in the phone call played to the Tribunal at the hearing.

The victim also gave evidence during which she referred to an incident a few hours before the threatening phone call when she had attended the complex where the tenant’s mother resides.

During her attendance at that complex (in connection with an unrelated matter) the tenant yelled at her from his mother’s balcony.

He accused her of trying to end his tenancy and lying about him. He then said something further, but the victim could not hear the precise words.

This incident left the victim feeling uneasy and, although she did not feel the need to activate her personal alarm, she called a colleague to report the incident and to make sure that her location and expected departure time were noted.

She later also reported the incident to her team leader.

When the threatening phone call occurred just a few hours later, the victim felt extremely uneasy and made sure that the correct protocol was followed in terms of reporting the threats as required.

This resulted in both tenant’s complex and his mother’s being locked down to all staff and contractors of the landlord for 48 hours.

This impacts staff and contractors but also all other tenants who are unable to be supported in the usual way.

The victim has not been able to return to either complex since the incident due to concerns about her safety. This impacts not only her but the clients that she supports.

The landlord filed a police report in relation to the threats made in the telephone call.

Taking into account the significance of the accusation, I find on the balance of probabilities, with the considerable evidence before me, that the tenant made two clear threats to stab the victim.

Section 55(1) of the Act is subject to a limited discretion contained in subsection (2) which states that: (2) The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) of this section if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies.

The type of breach alleged in this case is not capable of remedy.

The landlord has not detailed any loss in relation to the alleged breach for which compensation may be ordered or paid.

In terms of the likelihood of further breaches being committed by the tenant, I consider the flowing points: a. When later contacted by the landlord’s agent in relation to the threats, the tenant said that the comments were made in anger, and he did not mean them. b. However, in the same phone call his behaviour once again deteriorated to anger, aggression and name calling. c. A recording of this phone call was also provided to the Tribunal and played at the hearing. d. A telephonist at OCHT gave evidence that she has received a number of telephone calls from other tenants at the tenancy complex since the threats were made. These tenants have complained about the tenant’s ongoing aggressive and worrying behaviour. e. The landlord believes that the behaviour is escalating, and the witnesses provided evidence to support that view. f. The landlord and its witnesses gave evidence that there is no basis for the tenant’s complaints against the victim and the landlord considers that these complaints are fictitious making it very difficult to mediate with the tenant or find a safe path forward.

In considering exercise of the discretion under s55(2), and in light of the above, there is nothing before the Tribunal to satisfy me that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of this kind.

The tenancy must therefore be terminated under section 55(1)(c)(iii).

As Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord must ensure that the tenant receives a copy of this order as soon as possible (via an agent if necessary) as there is no email address on file for the tenant.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5026588. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 5.00pm on Sunday 20 October 2024. 2. Matthew Leadbetter is to pay the filing fee	$27.00		to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 5.00pm on Sunday 20 October 2024. 2. Matthew Leadbetter is to pay the filing fee