What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5308730?

The tribunal order states: The application for termination is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5308730?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308730?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308730?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12287551-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5308730?

The tribunal order states: The application for termination is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5308730?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308730?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308730?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12287551-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

51 Koura Drive, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5308730 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for termination is dismissed.
It is declared that the notice for termination for physical assault by tenant dated 15 August 2025 is void and of no effect.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The tenancy began on 18 June 2025 and is for a fixed term due to end on 18 June 2026.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy due to anti-social behaviour (section 55A) and physical assault (section 55AA).
In the application the landlord stated that she served on the tenant three notices for anti-social behaviour on 18 July 2025. These notices were not submitted to the Tribunal. There is no evidence that the landlord has complied with section 55A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The application for termination due to anti-social behaviour is dismissed.
The application for termination due to physical assault relates to an incident that occurred on 18 July 2025.
On that day the landlord attended at the premises to repair a toilet seat. From the evidence produced there was already tension between the parties because of several issues arising in the short period of the tenancy and because the landlord wanted the tenant to sign an inspection report, that she was not willing to sign.
After repairing the toilet, the landlord used the tenant’s soap and towel to wash and dry her hands. The tenant was not happy with this because she said her son has low immunity. While repairing the toilet the landlord put a piece of cardboard on the toilet bowel to stop tools falling into the toilet. The landlord put that cardboard into the tenant’s recycling bin. The tenant was not happy with that because her son had accidentally dropped a significant family item into the bin, and it had yet to be retrieved. The tenant said that she had explained this to the landlord, but she did not listen to her.
As a result, the tenant asked the landlord to remove the cardboard from the bin. At the same time the landlord had left her jacket upstairs and the tenant agreed to retrieve it if the cardboard was removed. Apparently, the landlord had asked the tenant to assist by holding the bin down so she could reach inside to get the cardboard. The landlord said that she had the cardboard in her right hand when she noticed that there were pizza boxes in the bin. She had her phone in her left hand and began to take photographs of the contents of the bin. It was then that the tenant shut the bin and the landlord’s right hand was jammed under the lid.
The disagreement between the parties continued with the landlord knocking on the doors of two neighbours and then putting the cardboard in one of the neighbour’s bins. It is not clear why the landlord didn’t just take the cardboard with her.
During this altercation the landlord had called the Police who advised that it was a civil matter but for her to retrieve the cardboard so that the tenant would get her jacket for her.
Later the landlord complained to the Police and two weeks later the tenant was charged with assault.
On 15 August 2025, almost a month after the incident, the landlord issued the tenant with a termination notice for physical assault. That notice advised that the last day of the tenancy would be 30 August 2025.
It is for the landlord to prove that the physical assault occurred and that the notice met the requirements of section 55AA(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which states; A notice to terminate a tenancy under this section must— (a)be in the approved form and include the prescribed information; and (b)be accompanied by qualifying evidence of the matters in subsection (1)(b); and (c)advise the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice (see sections 77(1) and 78(1)(a) regarding the Tribunal); and (d)be signed by the landlord or the landlord’s agent.
I am satisfied that the notice complies with section 55AA(3).
The remaining issue is whether the physical assault occurred.
Section 55AA(6) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that physical assault means: the act of intentionally applying force to the person of another, directly or indirectly
It is not clear that the tenant had intentionally applied force to the landlord.
The evidence is conflicting. The landlord produced a video that was taken on the day, but which does not include the alleged assault. The tenant says that she did video the incident but has not been able to produce the video due to technical issues but plans to produce it in the criminal court where she is defending the assault charge.
The landlord has produced a medical certificate which appears to overstate what occurred because it states, “Got attacked last Friday in an argument with her tenant.” The consultation with the doctor was four days after the incident. The tenant produced photographs of her forearm and finger which appear to be bruised.
The tenant’s evidence is that on one occasion the landlord attended with an arm brace on her right arm due to an injury to her wrist. The landlord denied this.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. I accept that there was an ongoing altercation between the parties and a clear lack of trust between them. But I am not satisfied that the tenant has assaulted the landlord because there is a lack of intent to do so. On the evidence the tenant is likely to have closed the lid of the bin because the landlord had retrieved the cardboard which was the purpose for the tenant holding the bin for her. The landlord had continued to have her hands in the bin for the purpose of taking photographs of the contents of the bin. As the tenant did not agree to this action, she appears to withdraw her assistance of holding the bin for the landlord.
As a result the applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant assaulted the landlord. The claim is dismissed.

Order

The application for termination is dismissed.
It is declared that the notice for termination for physical assault by tenant dated 15 August 2025 is void and of no effect.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The tenancy began on 18 June 2025 and is for a fixed term due to end on 18 June 2026.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy due to anti-social behaviour (section 55A) and physical assault (section 55AA).
In the application the landlord stated that she served on the tenant three notices for anti-social behaviour on 18 July 2025. These notices were not submitted to the Tribunal. There is no evidence that the landlord has complied with section 55A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The application for termination due to anti-social behaviour is dismissed.
The application for termination due to physical assault relates to an incident that occurred on 18 July 2025.
On that day the landlord attended at the premises to repair a toilet seat. From the evidence produced there was already tension between the parties because of several issues arising in the short period of the tenancy and because the landlord wanted the tenant to sign an inspection report, that she was not willing to sign.
After repairing the toilet, the landlord used the tenant’s soap and towel to wash and dry her hands. The tenant was not happy with this because she said her son has low immunity. While repairing the toilet the landlord put a piece of cardboard on the toilet bowel to stop tools falling into the toilet. The landlord put that cardboard into the tenant’s recycling bin. The tenant was not happy with that because her son had accidentally dropped a significant family item into the bin, and it had yet to be retrieved. The tenant said that she had explained this to the landlord, but she did not listen to her.
As a result, the tenant asked the landlord to remove the cardboard from the bin. At the same time the landlord had left her jacket upstairs and the tenant agreed to retrieve it if the cardboard was removed. Apparently, the landlord had asked the tenant to assist by holding the bin down so she could reach inside to get the cardboard. The landlord said that she had the cardboard in her right hand when she noticed that there were pizza boxes in the bin. She had her phone in her left hand and began to take photographs of the contents of the bin. It was then that the tenant shut the bin and the landlord’s right hand was jammed under the lid.
The disagreement between the parties continued with the landlord knocking on the doors of two neighbours and then putting the cardboard in one of the neighbour’s bins. It is not clear why the landlord didn’t just take the cardboard with her.
During this altercation the landlord had called the Police who advised that it was a civil matter but for her to retrieve the cardboard so that the tenant would get her jacket for her.
Later the landlord complained to the Police and two weeks later the tenant was charged with assault.
On 15 August 2025, almost a month after the incident, the landlord issued the tenant with a termination notice for physical assault. That notice advised that the last day of the tenancy would be 30 August 2025.
It is for the landlord to prove that the physical assault occurred and that the notice met the requirements of section 55AA(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which states; A notice to terminate a tenancy under this section must— (a)be in the approved form and include the prescribed information; and (b)be accompanied by qualifying evidence of the matters in subsection (1)(b); and (c)advise the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice (see sections 77(1) and 78(1)(a) regarding the Tribunal); and (d)be signed by the landlord or the landlord’s agent.
I am satisfied that the notice complies with section 55AA(3).
The remaining issue is whether the physical assault occurred.
Section 55AA(6) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that physical assault means: the act of intentionally applying force to the person of another, directly or indirectly
It is not clear that the tenant had intentionally applied force to the landlord.
The evidence is conflicting. The landlord produced a video that was taken on the day, but which does not include the alleged assault. The tenant says that she did video the incident but has not been able to produce the video due to technical issues but plans to produce it in the criminal court where she is defending the assault charge.
The landlord has produced a medical certificate which appears to overstate what occurred because it states, “Got attacked last Friday in an argument with her tenant.” The consultation with the doctor was four days after the incident. The tenant produced photographs of her forearm and finger which appear to be bruised.
The tenant’s evidence is that on one occasion the landlord attended with an arm brace on her right arm due to an injury to her wrist. The landlord denied this.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. I accept that there was an ongoing altercation between the parties and a clear lack of trust between them. But I am not satisfied that the tenant has assaulted the landlord because there is a lack of intent to do so. On the evidence the tenant is likely to have closed the lid of the bin because the landlord had retrieved the cardboard which was the purpose for the tenant holding the bin for her. The landlord had continued to have her hands in the bin for the purpose of taking photographs of the contents of the bin. As the tenant did not agree to this action, she appears to withdraw her assistance of holding the bin for the landlord.
As a result the applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant assaulted the landlord. The claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308730 — Tenancy dispute at 51 Koura Drive, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308730 — Tenancy dispute at 51 Koura Drive, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions