What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5121888?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of ROGER ALLAN WOODGATE at 36 Tiaki Rise, Tikipunga, Whangarei

How much money was awarded in case 5121888?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5121888?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5121888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11325390-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5121888?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of ROGER ALLAN WOODGATE at 36 Tiaki Rise, Tikipunga, Whangarei

How much money was awarded in case 5121888?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5121888?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5121888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11325390-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

36 Tiaki Rise, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5121888 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of ROGER ALLAN WOODGATE at 36 Tiaki Rise, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

A representative of Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities (‘KO”) attended the hearing, conducted by phone. The tenant is currently incarcerated, but the Notice of Hearing was served at both the tenancy address and the Corrections facility. The tenant was called on the number provided but the call went to voice mail. No request had been received for Mr Woodgate to attend by phone from the facility. The hearing proceeded in his absence.
Mr Woodgate is the sole resident of a 2 bedroomed property with his tenancy commencing on 15 October 2024. Prior to this he was a tenant in another KO property.
KO is seeking to terminate Mr Woodgate’s tenancy on 2 grounds: • Mr Woodgate has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, neighbours in the premises and •Mr Woodgate has breached his neighbour’s peace, comfort and privacy in the use of their premises and the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable for the Tribunal to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not, that the events outlined occurred. Assault
Section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: (1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, 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: (v) any neighbour of the premises, or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
Section 55(2) provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy in certain circumstances but in particular where they are satisfied the tenant is unlikely to commit another breach of its kind.
On 13 November 2024, a statement was received from a neighbouring KO tenant that on or around 11 November 2024, Mr Woodgate shot his cat in the head, killing it. When confronted by the neighbour, Mr Woodgate pulled a handgun (later determined as a slug gun) and threatened to kill him.
The Senior Housing Support Manager (SHSM) notified the Police of Mr Woodgate’s behaviour and alerted them that he had potential firearms.
In the absence of any evidence from Mr Woodgate to the contrary, and in light of other evidence presented by KO I find it is more likely than not that Mr Woodgate did threaten to assault the neighbour and I am not satisfied that it is unlikely that Mr Woodgate will commit another act of this kind. On this basis that tenancy is terminated. Breach of tenant obligations
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.
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.
Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA states that Mr Woodgate shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants. KO Evidence
KO claim Mr Woodgate has breached this obligation by: •On 11 November 2024, an anonymous phone call was received via KO’s Customer Service Centre that Mr Woodgate had been shooting a BB gun and that there were 3 dead cats outside of the complainant’s property and the neighbourhood. The caller also stated that Mr Woodgate had threatened to kill their dog when they were out walking. The caller was very concerned as they had only been in the neighbourhood for 2 weeks and had young children. No further details were provided regarding dates or times of this incident. It is understood this caller was not a tenant of KO. •A KO tenant, whose property backs on to Mr Woodgate’s, informed the Senior Housing Support Manager (“SHSM”) during a home visit on 21 November 2024 that Mr Woodgate could be heard yelling and was seen throwing things in his back yard. This made the neighbour feel uncomfortable to have her kids play outside in their backyard. She ensured that her children played indoors instead to avoid any contact with Mr Woodgate. •On 5 December 2024, a complaint was received from a KO tenant whose property was located behind 36 Tiaki Rise that Mr Woodgate had knocked down their fence. He was also seen knocking items down and flipping tables in his backyard, yelling. When the complainant was contacted by the SHSM, the complainant stated that Mr Woodgate was sitting in his backyard, looking straight at her windows through the broken fence which was making her feel uncomfortable. She notified the Police of this and quoted reference number PO60838100. Police have verbally confirmed the incident. •On 5 December 2024, neighbours sighted Mr Woodgate at approximately 8:30AM stopping traffic in the middle of the road outside his house yelling abuse at people in vehicles and throwing small items at children as they were walking to school. Police have confirmed that neighbours had reported the incident to them detailing the events that morning. First notice under Sec 55A was issued to Mr Woodgate on 16 December 2024. •On 5 December 2024, a complaint was received from a KO neighbour that Mr Woodgate had approached her outside of her property on 4 December 2024 at approximately 2:30PM. Mr Woodgate was demanding sugar, milk, tea, food and gas. Thinking that Mr Woodgate may have been diabetic, she allowed him through the backyard gate on his wheelchair and made him a cup of tea. •She started to feel uncomfortable shortly after when he started describing what he does to women sexually with the stumps of his legs. After she asked him to leave, he then threatened to have items stolen from her house and would arrange to have this done. •He then began to wheel up and down the road throwing the items she had given him, blocking the road and being abusive to people driving past.

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

I find given the nature of the breaches and the nature, frequency and escalation of them I find they are not breaches are not capable of remedy. Additional evidence
In addition to the events outlined above that have interfered with the neighbours’ quiet enjoyment there have been additional events:
On 29 November 2024, Mr Woodgate was located at 24 Moody Ave, his previous address, breaching a trespass order previously issued. A neighbour had phoned KO to advise that Mr Woodgate was at the property making a scene and displaying concerning behaviour. Police were subsequently notified by KO , and Mr Woodgate was uplifted from the property.
As a result of this incident resulting in feeling unsafe, the new tenants at 24 Moody Ave, who only moved in days prior, have since ended their tenancy after only living there for about 2.5 weeks. This was not a decision that was made lightly by the tenants after waiting 7 years to be housed in a KO property.
This type of disruptive behaviour has extended to KO’s maintenance partner, acting as agents of the landlord, who were working on various houses around Mr Woodgate’s current and previous neighbourhoods. On 15 November 2024, Mr Woodgate went back to his previous tenancy at 24 Moody Ave with his car and caravan. The property was not tenanted at that stage and was undergoing void scope works. Mr Woodgate appeared to be intoxicated or under the influence and was being abusive and threatening towards KO’s maintenance partners who were working on the property. Police attended and issued Mr Woodgate with a trespass notice on behalf of KO. Police searched his car at the time and found a sawn-off shotgun and ammunition. He was subsequently arrested and summoned to appear in court on 4 December 2024.
On 3 December 2024, the local property developer for KO advised that Mr Woodgate flagged down one of their contractors outside his current property at 36 Tiaki Rise at approximately 11am and was yelling incoherently. The next day, 4 December 2024, KO was advised by the developer, that Mr Woodgate was yelling and speaking incoherently outside of his address at around 2:00pm. One of their electricians had initially stopped, but when they tried to drive away, Mr Woodgate punched the side of their van. The contractors continued their way without further incident.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

The District Court set out the various factors that can be considered in making this decision in Huff v Central City Property Management Ltd [2020] NZDC 19229: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
During the short period of the current tenancy it is clear there have been numerous breaches that have escalated in nature. There has been involvement with the tenant by KO and it employees and the Police but it appears unlikely the tenant will comply with his obligations in the future. The behaviours are causing considerable distress and worry to the neighbours and I find that termination of the tenancy is an appropriate response to this application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5121888 — 14-day notice at 36 Tiaki Rise, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5121888 — 14-day notice at 36 Tiaki Rise, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions