What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5226597?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of EMMA HARATA BLOUNT at Unit/Flat 608, 11 Church Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5226597?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5226597?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5226597?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11741412-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5226597?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of EMMA HARATA BLOUNT at Unit/Flat 608, 11 Church Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5226597?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5226597?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5226597?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11741412-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 608, 11 Church Street, Wellington Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5226597 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application from the landlord, seeking immediate termination of the tenancy on two grounds, that is damage to the premises, and secondly, because the tenant has assaulted another tenant.

I begin by noting there was no appearance by the tenant at the hearing today. The hearing was scheduled as a Teams video hearing commencing at 2:00 pm on 22 April 2025. The hearing notice confirms that if the parties do not click into the video hearing, then the Tribunal would call them for the hearing.

Sometime around 12:20 pm the tenant telephoned the Tribunal to advise that her phone had been damaged, and that she would be unable to attend the hearing. The message taken by the call centre was that the tenant was phoning from a citizens advice bureau.

In any event, when the hearing was convened at 2 pm, the tenant was not in attendance by video, and I telephoned the tenant on the number found on the tenancy agreement, and also that held by the landlord, but neither call was answered.

The landlord opposed the hearing been delayed, and I agreed that an adjournment would not be reasonable. The allegations made are very serious, and it would not be reasonable to delay the matter being determined. I am also minded that the tenant could have still attended the video hearing, it must be likely that she would have access to an Internet service such as through the library, or other social agencies, such as for example, the citizens, advice, bureau, or using another persons phone for the hearing. Ultimately, in the absence of reasonable grounds to delay, the hearing, I determine the matter should proceed.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) confirms that the Tribunal “shall” order termination of the tenancy if various circumstances arise, that includes: a. That the tenant has caused or threatened to cause damage to the premises; or b. That the tenant has assaulted another tenant.

ANALYSIS

The landlord seeks an immediate termination of the tenancy on two grounds, I will begin firstly, by considering the application for property damage. Property damage

The landlord advised that the premises are in a complex in central Wellington, of 104 apartments. The respondent, Ms Blount is a tenant of one of those units.

The landlord’s position is that the tenant has deliberately damaged the premises, on seven occasions. The landlord has provided the Tribunal with security camera footage which I accept shows a woman: a. Striking a security door with a piece of framing timber, breaking the glass presumably to open the door from the inside. b. Striking and disabling a security camera with a piece of framing timber. c. Striking a door with an object or tool (the image is through the glass panel). d. Striking and disabling a security camera with an elbow crutch. e. Striking and disabling a security camera with a panel or sheet of some type.

At the hearing today, I heard evidence from one witness, that was Mr Malaulau, an officer of the landlord. Mr Malaulau advised that he knows and has met the tenant. The witness confirmed that he seen the videos provided to the Tribunal, and described those in detail at the hearing. I am satisfied that the videos Mr Malaulau was referring to were the videos provided in evidence for the hearing. Mr Malaulau confirmed that the woman seen damaging the premises in the videos, is Ms Blount. I accept that is the case.

Having considered the videos available, I consider it likely that the tenant’s actions above are likely to have caused damage to the doors and security cameras.

On the evidence available, I am satisfied that the tenant has caused actual damage to the premises. The damage is repeated and of an extent that the landlord has established grounds to order termination of the tenancy under section 55 as noted above. Immediate termination is ordered. Assault

In addition to the application for termination due to property damage, the landlord has also applied for termination on the ground that the tenant has assaulted another tenant.

Given the outcome above, that the tenancy is terminated because of the property damage, it is not necessary for me to consider whether there are also grounds to terminate because of assault. I expressed no view in relation to that claim, but note the outcome of terminating the tenancy would be no different, whether one or both of the grounds of the claim had been established. Immediate enforcement of the possession order

Section 138 of the District Court Act 2016 holds that normally an order cannot be enforced until 48 hours have expired, unless a “Judge grants leave”. However, section 106(2) of the RTA which relates to enforcement of possession orders, confirms that reference to a ‘Judge’ in section 138(1) applies as if it were reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator.

This is a case where it is appropriate that leave be granted for an immediate enforcement of the possession order. I accept that there is a significant risk to the premises and the occupants. The evidence is that the tenant is damaging the premises, and disabling important security measures. This would be a case where it would be reasonable to waive the usual expectation of 48 hour standdown, so if the landlord wishes, the possession order can be enforced immediately.

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

The landlord seeks an immediate termination of the tenancy on two grounds, I will begin firstly, by considering the application for property damage. Property damage

The landlord advised that the premises are in a complex in central Wellington, of 104 apartments. The respondent, Ms Blount is a tenant of one of those units.

Having considered the videos available, I consider it likely that the tenant’s actions above are likely to have caused damage to the doors and security cameras.

In addition to the application for termination due to property damage, the landlord has also applied for termination on the ground that the tenant has assaulted another tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5226597 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 608, 11 Church Street, Wellington Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5226597 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 608, 11 Church Street, Wellington Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions