Tenancy terminated over assault threats
A man who threw plastic chairs at his frightened neighbours, before letting off a gas bottle in the shared hallway and shouting "boom, boom, you can all die", has lost his Salvation Army flat.
Quinton Rihari could not be reached for the Tenancy Tribunal's hearing, where the Salvation Army sought to terminate the tenancy on his central Dunedin flat, saying he had threatened to assault other tenants in the complex.
According to the tribunal's recently released decision, Rihari received written warnings about his behaviour at his Thomas Burns St flat on three occasions.
The first was on December 27 last year, when he broke a painting in the corridor during a fight. It began at 3.30am and lasted for an hour and a half.
Then, in February, he verbally abused tenants when they asked him to turn his music down.
Two months later, on April 14, the Salvation Army says Rihari became angry and threw plastic chairs off a shared balcony, frightening other tenants.
After returning to his room, Rihari let off a 9kg LPG bottle in the hallway, yelling "boom, boom, you can all die".
Police were called and took Rihari away, but he returned and begin yelling at the other tenants, calling them "narks".
Later that day, he told another tenant he was going to "punch her head in".
Again, police were called and Rihari was taken away.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act, the tribunal can terminate a tenancy if it's satisfied a tenant has engaged in antisocial behaviour on three separate occasions during a 90-day period and received written notice on each occasion.
The decision found that while Rihari received separate notices for each incident, the three incidents spanned 108 days, outside the 90-day period.
Despite this, as the tribunal found Rihari had threatened to harm his neighbours, it agreed to terminate Rihari's tenancy.
By Catherine Hutton
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Tenancy Tribunal orders landlord Jake Sim to pay tenant $3500 for unlawful entries, breaching his peace
By Tara Shaskey, Open Justice multimedia journalist, Taranaki of Photo: 123rf A man leaving his home for work at 6.30am went to jump into his work van but unexpectedly found his landlord sitting in it, drinking a handle of beer. The incidents were a part of a bigger tenancy issue in which Sim turned up at the property intoxicated and banging on the doors, and on other occasions, unlawfully let himself in. According to a recently released decision, the concerned tenant began setting "traps" to catch Sim in the act and also changed the locks, which, legally, he was not allowed to do. Eventually, because of Sim's "behaviour", the tenant, who can not be named, gave notice to end the tenancy late last year. Even moving out was an issue as the pair disagreed on what day the tenancy ended. The tenant said it was 17 November, while Sim said it was the 15th. Sim broke into the house on the 15th and was then blamed by the tenant for the alleged theft of $3000 and two rings after his gun safe was allegedly forced open. The tenant later complained to the Tenancy Tribunal, claiming compensation and exemplary damages for alleged unlawful entries by Sim and breaches of his right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. A recently released decision stated the tenancy started on 4 April 2022, and while the tenant paid rent from that date, he was in the process of selling his own home and did not completely move into the rental until around June 2022. The tenant told the tribunal that on 23 April that year, he went to the rental, the location of which was redacted from the decision, and found a treadmill set up and a TV mounted on a wall. A half-empty handle of an alcoholic drink had been left beside the treadmill. The tenant questioned Sim, and his reply was to the effect of "I can do what I like, I own the property". The tenant reiterated that he was paying rent and Sim could not enter whenever he liked. But sometime during the following week, the items were removed, again, without notice being given to enter the property. According to the decision, Sim, who lived near the rental, had not been invited over and the tenant, who took a photo of Sim in the van to use as evidence, did not expect him to be sitting in his vehicle. The tenant's partner told the tribunal that on other occasions, Sim turned up, often intoxicated, banging on the door and calling out to her. "She said that she stopped answering the door to him. She also gave evidence of the nature of his comments and conversation; she described it as inappropriate and made her feel uncomfortable." The tribunal accepted her evidence and found it was consistent with the tone of Sim's messaging. The decision stated that the tenant began "setting traps" when he was going away to see whether someone was entering the property. While the decision didn't detail the traps, it said that when the tenant found a closed bathroom door open on his return in April 2024, he approached Sim. He said Sim admitted to taking "a sneaky look at the bathroom". While Sim did not turn up to the tribunal hearing, he did provide written submissions in which he said he went into the house on that occasion to look at the shower drain, though there was no evidence of it being an emergency. Around mid-2024, the tenant changed the locks to the house. He acknowledged it was a breach of his obligations as a tenant but said he felt he had no other option. The tribunal ruled it would not order him to pay exemplary damages, given the context in which the locks were changed. As the tenancy came to an end and the tenant was in the process of moving out, Sim indicated he knew the locks had been changed. He texted the tenant saying, "I can always get in". Sim then said he had used a lock-picking kit to let himself in on November 14. Then, on November 15, when he believed the tenancy had ended, he climbed through a window. The tenant claimed that when he returned to the premises on November 16 to finish moving, his gun safe had been opened and $3000 in cash and two rings were gone. Messages from Sim showed that he denied opening the safe but said he had left the house unlocked. "I will admit to breaking in but you are not allowed to change the locks without informing the owner," he texted the tenant. "Can you give me an indication of what was taken and I'll personally pay it back." While the tenant sought to recover the cash from Sim, the tribunal was not satisfied there was enough evidence to prove the money and rings were removed from the safe. But it did find that the tenancy end date was 17 November and that Sim had entered the rental unlawfully on November 15 and four other occasions. He also "displayed a persistent, cavalier attitude to the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment of the premises", the tribunal ruled. He was ordered to pay the tenant, who was awarded name suppression, $2000 compensation and $1500 in damages. -This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Tenancy Tribunal orders landlord Victor Davis to pay $9k following illegal storage unit tenancy
By Tara Shaskey, Open Justice reporter of Photo: Jonathan Weiss / 123RF A father desperate for accommodation moved into a storage unit in an industrial zone with his five-year-old daughter and their pet, paying $430 a week for space with no fresh air or natural light. The illegal tenancy lasted only a matter of months and ended "very badly", leaving the girl "emotional" and the man extremely stressed. According to a Tenancy Tribunal decision, the landlord, Victor Davis, had told the man to leave and then, a week before Christmas, locked them out of the unit and seized some of their belongings. Now, about six months on, the man said he was still trying to rebuild his life. He told the tribunal he could not believe how Davis treated him and described what happened as being "kicked out of his home" and that the effect was "gut-wrenching". The tribunal found the man had entered into the tenancy agreement in good faith and that Davis was likely motivated by money and had profited unfairly. Davis claimed he rented the man a storage unit and was not aware he had decided to live there. However, the tribunal found evidence, including that they signed a standard residential tenancy agreement, proved he had most likely rented the industrial unit as a home, and knew that he was not allowed to. "The living situation was so unusual that the landlord must have known he should check with the council before advertising and offering to rent to the tenant," the tribunal's decision said. The man, who has name suppression, turned to the tribunal in the days after his tenancy ended last year, claiming compensation and exemplary damages because of how it ended. Davis counterclaimed for rent arrears and compensation for moving the man's belongings. In the recently released decision, the tribunal said the man urgently needed accommodation when he answered an advertisement relating to the unit. The storage unit was located in an industrial area of Ōtaki, on the Kāpiti Coast, and the only entrance was through a large garage roller door. There was an office space at the back of the unit where the man and his daughter lived. It had no external windows and the only way they could get fresh air and daylight was to have the garage door open, which meant the unit would fill up with dust and debris. The man came from a three-bedroom house and utilised the storage part of the unit for storage. In the office space, there was a bathroom with "some sort of extractor fan that the tenant had no control over", and a kitchenette with a fridge, a sink and some hobs. They were allowed to have their pet live with them, though the decision does not state what animal the pet was. The tenancy lasted around 17 weeks, during which he paid $6020. It started falling apart around October last year, when the man gave Davis a "heads up" that he would be moving out because he did not feel safe living in the unit. The man said that on 4 December, there was an argument and Davis told him he had two days to leave. However, Davis told the tribunal he could not recall telling the man to move out, but he was concerned about rent arrears, drugs and safety. A few days after the argument, there was allegedly no power or water in the unit. The man said he took that as a sign that Davis was forcing him out, so he stopped paying rent. Davis said he did not turn the power and water off. The man bought a campervan to live in and began organising the move of his belongings. But on 18 December Davis screwed the garage door shut, preventing access to the unit. He said he locked the man out because he and others threatened to hurt him and damage the unit. The police were called and officers helped the man to get access. He collected his pet and some essentials. It was negotiated that the man could return the following day to collect the rest of his things. He told the tribunal that he had about an hour-and-a-half to enter and chose the most useful belongings to put into his car and trailer. The rest was left behind. He claimed Davis then put some of his belongings outside, where they were ruined, and refused to return what was left inside. He claimed he lost between $10,000 and $15,000 of belongings, including appliances, computer gear, some furniture, clothing toys, and sports gear. Davis told the tribunal that the man left behind a mess and removed everything of value. What was left outside and in the storage unit was rubbish, Davis claimed. He has not allowed the man access since. Following the hearing, which both parties attended, the tribunal found largely in favour of the man. It found the storage unit was not lawfully consented for residential use and therefore the tenancy was unlawful. The decision stated that in the event of such a finding, the tribunal can order the landlord to repay the tenant all the rent they paid, or a lesser amount in special circumstances. Davis was ordered to refund $3500 of the man's rent. That amount weighed the "detriment to the tenant in terms of discomfort and amenity", and "the need to discourage landlords from renting premises that cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes". When considering whether Davis ended the tenancy without grounds, the tribunal was more persuaded by the man's evidence. It ruled it was ended by Davis telling the man to leave, then denying him access, which was unlawful and resulted in an order for Davis to pay exemplary damages of $3250. The tribunal also found that Davis seized the man's belongings, leading to a damages order of $1000. The man failed to prove the claim for the list of belongings he said were lost, with the tribunal finding that, logically, the man would take the most valuable items first when given a limited time to pack, and there was no way of proving what was left behind. However, Davis was still ordered to pay $2000 in compensation for stress, inconvenience, and the likely loss of household items. The tribunal dismissed the claim that Davis had interfered with the man's services, relating to the power and water allegation, as well as claims Davis had entered the unit without consent or notice, and another of a breach of quiet enjoyment. Davis' counterclaims were also dismissed with the decision noting that when the tribunal finds unlawful premises, it can not order the tenant to pay rent arrears or compensation, unless there are special circumstances, which there were not. He has been ordered to pay the man a total of $9777, which includes a filing fee. * This story originally appeared in the [ link here New Zealand Herald].
RNZ News
11-06-2025
- RNZ News
Landlord let 'uninhabitable' property to sister-in-law
Photo: Supplied / MBIE A landlord who rented a property that was "never intended for anyone to live in" to his sister-in-law has been told to pay $5900 in exemplary damages. The identities of the landlord and tenant have been suppressed. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment's tenancy compliance and investigations team (TCIT) opened an investigation after it received a complaint in August 2023 from a social assistance provider. The woman was living in a dwelling on the landlord's property and the person making the complaint believed her serious health issues were made worse by her living conditions. The tenancy had not been intended to be permanent but little action had been taken on plans to build a fit-for-purpose cabin. TCIT said there was visible mould, no underfloor insulation, holes in the walls and ceilings, damaged windows, roof damage, visible vegetation in the gutters and electrical cables exposed to the weather. The tenant told TCIT the floor was uneven and flooded in the lounge in a cyclone. She said she had a tenancy agreement but had not paid bond. The landlord did not inspect the property and had not followed through on promises to address problems. The landlord admitted the property was not fit for human habitation and had been empty for years and was not intended to be lived in. The Tenancy Tribunal issued an order after mediation, in which the landlord accepted breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act. TCIT national manager Brett Wilson said landlords had obligations they must meet under the Residential Tenancies Act, which included ensuring the property was provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair. Photo: Supplied / MBIE "These obligations are not optional; they are a legal requirement. It is not an excuse for the landlord to say they had not intended to rent out the premises, the fact is they did and that means they have a responsibility to comply with the Act. "Despite raising multiple issues with the landlord, who is also a family relative, these matters were either ignored or not fully resolved. In one instance, on being advised there was a large gaping hole in the end room, the landlord said he told the tenant to close the door and not to use the room as a living space," he said. The tribunal adjudicator was satisfied the unlawful acts were committed intentionally and ordered the landlord to pay $5900 in exemplary damages to the tenant and reimbursement of the application filing fee. Photo: Supplied / MBIE In another case dealt with by the tribunal recently, tenants wanted to remain in a property that the landlords argued was uninhabitable. The landlords have been told to pay $1800 in compensation to their tenants over the way they handled repairs to the property. The tenants reported a leak in the laundry floor in March. A water pipe was found to have split and water was spraying on to the underneath of the floor. Access was difficult and a plumber had to put a rag over the pipe so the leaking water went to the ground instead. To fix it properly, the floor in the laundry and bathroom needed to be lifted, and pipe work replaced. The bathroom vanity and shower had to be replaced and there was also damage in the kitchen. The work was estimated to take two weeks. Photo: Supplied / MBIE The tribunal adjudicator accepted it would be difficult for the tenants to live in the premises for that time, and it would be hard for contractors to do the work. But the tenants did not agree to leave. The landlords gave them a 14-day notice to terminate on the basis the premises were uninhabitable. When they did not comply, the landlords issued a trespass notice but police told them it was a case for the Tenancy Tribunal. The tribunal adjudicator said the premises were habitable - a builder's reference to them not being "livable" referred to while the work was being done, when someone could fall through the floor. "The landlords' pressure on the tenants was persistent and I have no hesitation in finding that it amounted to harassment. It followed an invalid termination notice and so it was an interference with the tenants' quiet enjoyment of the premises. That is an unlawful act. "Because the landlords had some reason to think that their notice was valid, I find that the unlawful act was not intentional. But the tenants are entitled to compensation. "I accept that this has been an extremely unpleasant experience for the tenants. The process began with an unlawful notice and things went from bad to much worse when the landlords employed 'self-help' methods to resolve the situation in their favour instead of coming to the Tribunal for a resolution. I find that an award of $1800, being six weeks rent, is appropriate."
