KEY POINTS:
The Tenancy Tribunal this week gave the legal thumbs-down to Housing New Zealand's wish to evict tenants accused of terrorising Mt Albert's Range View Rd. The neighbours of Sharon Salt delivered a far more compelling verdict, however. Asked to comment, they, as one, refused to give their names
for fear of reprisals from Mrs Salt and her family. And, as one, they struggled to come to terms with a decision that, to them and most other people, defied reality.
Some blamed either the tribunal process or the presentation of Housing NZ's case. In the latter instance, at least, they appear to have a point. The tribunal adjudicator, Amanda Elliott, spoke of being "left with a vague notion that it [the case against the Salts] was just the general behaviour over years". She criticised both the police and Housing NZ for a lack of specific evidence about claims of disorderly behaviour, vandalism, assaults, property damage and intimidation of neighbours.
In large part, these shortcomings must surely have been prompted by overconfidence. The police and Housing NZ may well have believed an eviction order was a fait accompli. Indeed, this may well have been a reasonable assumption, given the copious allegations of serious anti-social and disorderly conduct against the Salts.
So much for taking things for granted. Amanda Elliot was able to scorn much of the evidence. Police testimony suggesting there had been 85 callouts to the Salts' state house in the six months to May proved particularly troublesome. In fact, the adjudicator noted, these applied to all of Range View Rd, including a neighbourhood park. Only 20 incidents related to the property occupied by Mrs Salt and, of these, only nine were made after a breach notice was issued in January. Of that number, five related to bail checks, one was a general inquiry, one was a search warrant, one was a subsequently cancelled disorderly behaviour callout, and one related to a fight across the street not involving the Salt boys.
Other elements of the police and Housing NZ presentation were similarly flawed. A failure to properly document and follow up on complaints compromised their case. Yet whatever the lack of comprehensive evidence, it is impossible to disregard the sheer weight of complaints. From this, it is supremely difficult to discern a neighbourhood at peace with the Salts.
The tribunal finding is surely the work of an adjudicator keen to avoid evicting a tenant, presumably on the grounds that the problem would simply surface elsewhere. This position could be sustained only if good reason could be found to support Mrs Salt. The thinness of the police and Housing NZ evidence in individual cases, if not in volume, provided the necessary buttressing. "The landlord has not provided, on the balance of probabilities, sufficient evidence for me to equitably or fairly terminate Mrs Salt's tenancy," Amanda Elliott concluded.
Those living close to the Salts are, of course, not concerned that their problem would merely be shifted to another neighbourhood. All they want is the family gone. One said the decision would be the catalyst for leaving Range View Rd. That is a more eloquent testimony of the lot of the neighbours than any finding based on narrow legal parameters.
If only for the sake of these people, Housing NZ must appeal against the tribunal decision. A more thorough and well-documented case would surely deliver the appropriate outcome. Housing NZ must also sharpen up its procedures for dealing with problem tenants at an earlier stage. It has been caught napping in several respects, and the residents of Range View Rd have had to pay the consequences. They should not be required to suffer much longer.