What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5135968?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Michael Charles King at Unit/Flat Flat 40, 49 Aotaki Street, Otaki,

How much money was awarded in case 5135968?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5135968?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5135968?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11409728-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5135968?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Michael Charles King at Unit/Flat Flat 40, 49 Aotaki Street, Otaki,

How much money was awarded in case 5135968?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5135968?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5135968?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11409728-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 40, 49 Aotaki Street, Otaki, Otaki 5512, Kainga Tenancy Tribunal Case 5135968 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5135968 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

The tenancy of Michael Charles King at Unit/Flat Flat 40, 49 Aotaki Street, Otaki, Otaki 5512, Kainga Flats is terminated, and possession is granted to Kapiti Coast District Council immediately.
Michael Charles King will pay Kapiti Coast Council the sum of $27.00 immediately. DescriptionLandlord Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$27.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$27.00

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely. The representatives of Kapiti Coast Council attended the hearing. Mr King is currently on remand in a correctional facility. He could not be contacted on the phone number provided at the time of the hearing. I am satisfied Mr King was served with notice of the hearing by email and by post at the tenancy address and the correctional facility. No request had been received for him to attend the hearing by phone. The hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord relies on section 55(1)(c)(v) to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant occupies a 1 bedroomed unit, one of 24 units in the complex, Kainga Flats. This is a complex for those aged 65 and over, with the average age being 78 years and is a very quiet neighbourhood. The tenancy commenced on 12 January 2024.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Where an allegation is particularly serious, and in particular involving criminal offending as is the case here, the Tribunal requires evidence of a sufficiently high standard to meet the burden. The District Court in Clarke v Housing New Zealand CIV 2008-006-000033 have confirmed however that the Tribunal should proceed to hear an application even when a matter is pending in the criminal court, and cannot make the decision conditional on the outcome of criminal proceedings. Landlords evidence
On the morning of 3 January 2025 Mr King came out of his unit, creating a loud verbal disturbance catching the attention of a number of neighbouring pensioner tenants who live at the village. He was brandishing a stick and threatening to kill and harm members of the village and the wider community and in particular his focus was on his nearest neighbour.
The police attended and calmed the situation and Mr King returned to his unit.
In the early afternoon of the same day Mr King came out of his unit again and approached several tenants threatening in a more aggressive and threatening manner. He then returned to his unit, coming out again brandishing the pipe from the vacuum cleaner.
Mr King then approached the door of another unit in the village and that tenant came to the door. Mr King held his fist to the neighbouring tenant’s chin, threatening to smash him over. At this time a family member of the man being threatened joined the scene and stopped any actual assault from taking place.
They police arrived soon after and were required to taser Mr King after he assaulted a police officer and resisted arrest.
Mr King is currently on remand having been charged with threatening to kill /do grievous bodily harm and resisting and assaulting police. His next court appearance is on 26th of March 2025.
These events have had a traumatic effect on the residents of the complex and also affected the wider community. Termination The law
The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for assault. It reads: Section 55 (1)Subject to subsection (2) of this act, 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 caused, 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 constitutes a part.... (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 [(but see also section 78A(3)(b))].
Assault is defined in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 as: [T]he act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has the present ability to effect his purpose.
In the case of Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court Christchurch, CIV- 2004 – 409 – 717, 2 July 2004, his Honour Judge Keane accepted that an assault, or threat of assault, once made could not be remedied. His Honour however, formed the view that the discretion under section 55(2) RTA remained, regardless of whether the breach was capable of remedy or not. The High Court held that if the breach could not be remedied, then the issue could be set aside and the Tribunal go on to consider the two remaining factors under section 55(2), namely whether the landlord had been compensated for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely that the tenant would commit any further breach. Analysis
Based on the evidence presented by the landlords, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr King threatened to assault other tenants in the complex on the morning of 3 January 2025 by brandishing a stick at them and threatening to harm or kill them. In addition, on the same day he threatened to assault his immediate neighbour by holding a fist to his chin and threatening to smash him over, this action only being stopped by a family member intervening.
The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of Section 55(1)(c)(v) are established.
The next issue I must determine is whether this is an appropriate case to exercise my jurisdiction not to terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The breach is not capable of remedy and the landlord is not able to be financially compensated. Therefore, the only remaining factor I must consider is whether it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.
I regard the threatened assaults that took place as extremely serious and unprovoked and it has had a significant impact on those in the complex and the wider community. I am not satisfied that it is unlikely that Mr King will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future should he be returned to the complex in the future.
The landlord has proven their claim under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA and I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under section 55(2). The tenancy is terminated.
Because Kapiti Coast District Council has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5135968 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

The tenancy of Michael Charles King at Unit/Flat Flat 40, 49 Aotaki Street, Otaki, Otaki 5512, Kainga Flats is terminated, and possession is granted to Kapiti Coast District Council immediately.
Michael Charles King will pay Kapiti Coast Council the sum of $27.00 immediately. DescriptionLandlord Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$27.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$27.00

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely. The representatives of Kapiti Coast Council attended the hearing. Mr King is currently on remand in a correctional facility. He could not be contacted on the phone number provided at the time of the hearing. I am satisfied Mr King was served with notice of the hearing by email and by post at the tenancy address and the correctional facility. No request had been received for him to attend the hearing by phone. The hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord relies on section 55(1)(c)(v) to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant occupies a 1 bedroomed unit, one of 24 units in the complex, Kainga Flats. This is a complex for those aged 65 and over, with the average age being 78 years and is a very quiet neighbourhood. The tenancy commenced on 12 January 2024.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Where an allegation is particularly serious, and in particular involving criminal offending as is the case here, the Tribunal requires evidence of a sufficiently high standard to meet the burden. The District Court in Clarke v Housing New Zealand CIV 2008-006-000033 have confirmed however that the Tribunal should proceed to hear an application even when a matter is pending in the criminal court, and cannot make the decision conditional on the outcome of criminal proceedings. Landlords evidence
On the morning of 3 January 2025 Mr King came out of his unit, creating a loud verbal disturbance catching the attention of a number of neighbouring pensioner tenants who live at the village. He was brandishing a stick and threatening to kill and harm members of the village and the wider community and in particular his focus was on his nearest neighbour.
The police attended and calmed the situation and Mr King returned to his unit.
In the early afternoon of the same day Mr King came out of his unit again and approached several tenants threatening in a more aggressive and threatening manner. He then returned to his unit, coming out again brandishing the pipe from the vacuum cleaner.
Mr King then approached the door of another unit in the village and that tenant came to the door. Mr King held his fist to the neighbouring tenant’s chin, threatening to smash him over. At this time a family member of the man being threatened joined the scene and stopped any actual assault from taking place.
They police arrived soon after and were required to taser Mr King after he assaulted a police officer and resisted arrest.
Mr King is currently on remand having been charged with threatening to kill /do grievous bodily harm and resisting and assaulting police. His next court appearance is on 26th of March 2025.
These events have had a traumatic effect on the residents of the complex and also affected the wider community. Termination The law
The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for assault. It reads: Section 55 (1)Subject to subsection (2) of this act, 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 caused, 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 constitutes a part.... (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 [(but see also section 78A(3)(b))].
Assault is defined in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 as: [T]he act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has the present ability to effect his purpose.
In the case of Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court Christchurch, CIV- 2004 – 409 – 717, 2 July 2004, his Honour Judge Keane accepted that an assault, or threat of assault, once made could not be remedied. His Honour however, formed the view that the discretion under section 55(2) RTA remained, regardless of whether the breach was capable of remedy or not. The High Court held that if the breach could not be remedied, then the issue could be set aside and the Tribunal go on to consider the two remaining factors under section 55(2), namely whether the landlord had been compensated for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely that the tenant would commit any further breach. Analysis
Based on the evidence presented by the landlords, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr King threatened to assault other tenants in the complex on the morning of 3 January 2025 by brandishing a stick at them and threatening to harm or kill them. In addition, on the same day he threatened to assault his immediate neighbour by holding a fist to his chin and threatening to smash him over, this action only being stopped by a family member intervening.
The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of Section 55(1)(c)(v) are established.
The next issue I must determine is whether this is an appropriate case to exercise my jurisdiction not to terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The breach is not capable of remedy and the landlord is not able to be financially compensated. Therefore, the only remaining factor I must consider is whether it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.
I regard the threatened assaults that took place as extremely serious and unprovoked and it has had a significant impact on those in the complex and the wider community. I am not satisfied that it is unlikely that Mr King will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future should he be returned to the complex in the future.
The landlord has proven their claim under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA and I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under section 55(2). The tenancy is terminated.
Because Kapiti Coast District Council has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5135968 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 40, 49 Aotaki Street, Otaki, Otaki 5512, Kainga

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5135968 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 40, 49 Aotaki Street, Otaki, Otaki 5512, Kainga

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions