What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5225814?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Ross MacDonald at Room 4, Unit/Flat 3, 31 Poulson Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5225814?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5225814?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5225814?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11794322-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5225814?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Ross MacDonald at Room 4, Unit/Flat 3, 31 Poulson Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5225814?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5225814?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5225814?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11794322-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 4, Unit/Flat 3, 31 Poulson Street, Addington, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5225814 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The tenancy of Ross MacDonald at Room 4, Unit/Flat 3, 31 Poulson Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Properties Merivale immediately.

Ross MacDonald must pay Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Properties Merivale $27.00 immediately being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because of a threat to assault on 4 April 2025. The questions I have to consider are: • Was there a threat to assault? • Should I use my discretion?

Was there a threat to assault?

Section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) says the Tribunal shall end a tenancy where the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, the landlord or any agent of the landlord, or any occupier of the same complex, or any neighbour.

The person who was said there was a threat to assault gave evidence as a witness. The tenancy is a room by room tenancy which means the witness, who lives down the hall, is living in the same house. He is a neighbour and/or someone who lives in the same complex. The witness provided a written statement which sets out how he was threatened by the tenant on 4 April 2025. He said the tenant banged on his door a number of times in the early hours of the morning, yelling and threatening harm. At the hearing the witness confirmed the statement as true and correct. The witness called the police at the time. He said he is stressed and has not been sleeping well since 4 April.

The landlord provided me with a copy of a police statement which confirms the tenant has been charged with: • threatens to kill/do GBH (Stab/Cut/Weapon) • two charges of wilful damage.

The tenant questioned whether the Tribunal could hear the application to end the tenancy before the criminal hearing was concluded. I can confirm that the District Court has decided the Tenancy Tribunal should proceed to hear an application, even when the matter is pending in the District Court. See Clarke v Housing New Zealand Corporation (CIV-2008-006-000033).

The tenant said he has no recollection of what happened on 4 April 2025 because he was so intoxicated. He does remember waking up in the police cells and understands he has been charged with threatening the witness.

The tenant also submitted that the property manager has had it in for him for the last year and this provided some context to the application to end the tenancy. The property manager said there had been discussions about keeping his room reasonably clean and two 14 day notices had been given to the tenant. She said the urgent application to end the tenancy to protect the witness is a completely separate matter.

I am more persuaded by the evidence from the landlord and the witness. The witness evidence corroborates the landlord’s application to end the tenancy. The police have laid charges. The tenant cannot remember what happened. I find it is most likely the tenant threatened to assault the witness.

Should I use my discretion?

Section 55(2) RTA says “The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) 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)).” Section 78A is not relevant here.

The District Court in Haitana v Housing New Zealand Corporation considered a situation where a tenant had been convicted of an assault and the landlord subsequently applied for termination of the tenancy in the Tenancy Tribunal. The decision was appealed to the District Court. The Judge said - “In essence, ... the fact that a breach may not be capable of remedy, i.e. in the context of an assault which has been committed, is not determinative in the section 55(2) context. ... the preferable interpretation of section 55(2) is to put aside a breach which cannot be remedied and then consider the issue of termination by reference to the other two preconditions for the exercise of the discretion, i.e. compensation, if any, to the landlord and the likelihood or otherwise of any further similar breach by the tenant.” See CIV-2006-009-003335, DC Christchurch 2006 and CIV-2004-709-717 HC Christchurch 2004

I am not exercising my discretion under 55(2) RTA. I accept this is not a situation where the landlord can be compensated for loss. The tenant was so intoxicated that he does not remember what happened, so I have no way of assessing if there is a likelihood of another threat. The witness lives in a room down the hall. I find the chance of further threats is too great. I am persuaded this tenancy should end immediately. The filing fee

Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Ross MacDonald must pay Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Properties Merivale $27.00 immediately being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Was there a threat to assault?

The landlord provided me with a copy of a police statement which confirms the tenant has been charged with: • threatens to kill/do GBH (Stab/Cut/Weapon) • two charges of wilful damage.

Should I use my discretion?

Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5225814 — 14-day notice at Room 4, Unit/Flat 3, 31 Poulson Street, Addington,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5225814 — 14-day notice at Room 4, Unit/Flat 3, 31 Poulson Street, Addington,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a threat to assault?

Should I use my discretion?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a threat to assault?

Should I use my discretion?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions