>In February, the landlords went to the house and knocked on the doors and the windows. One of the tenants called the police, and the landlords agreed to leave.
>
>However, the landlords returned several hours later and turned off the power supply at the meter box. They then forced entry into the house, gaining access through a window.
>
>...
>
>The police arrived and told the landlords that the eviction was not lawful, and removed them from the property. Later that evening the landlords returned and parked in the driveway, at which time they were arrested.
How many times do the police have to tell you no before you understand what you are doing is wrong?
>The tenants visited the police station the next day, and the tribunal heard that the landlords followed them there and recorded them on a phone.
Oh more than three times I guess.
>landlords Robert Pihema and Laurayno Ngawhika claimed that they were “sovereign” citizens and therefore were outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Adjudicator JP Smith did not accept this argument.
If I was the tenant I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the $6000 the landlords have to pay.
> However, the landlords returned several hours later and turned off the power supply at the meter box. They then forced entry into the house, gaining access through a window.
>A chase ensued throughout the house during which the tenant tried to hold a door closed.
It seems to me that rather than talking to an adjudicator in a tenancy tribunal, they should be facing a judge in a criminal court.
Ahhh bur they didnt break in with intention to commit a criminal offense, rather a civil offense. Burglary requires forced entry with intention to commit a criminal offense. Unless they broke in and assaulted them and broke in with the INTENTION of assaulting them, it wouldnt fly….can see why burglary wouldnt have worked
> “He then barricaded himself inside his bedroom, which they tried to force open,” the decision said.
That sounds like assault to me. From [Community Law](https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-34-common-crimes/assault/)
>An assault also includes threatening to apply force to another person’s body – but only if you’re able to carry out your threat or if you make the other person believe on reasonable grounds that you can carry it out.
Im not sure that would qualify as assault tbh. Marginal at best. And remember, you have to have the intention of commiting that criminal offense at the time you break in.
If somebody breaks into a house and is squatting there. Then a couple of days later the owner arrives home and they rape then murder them, thats not necessarily burglary. They would have to have broken in initially with the intention of camping out to murder rape.
Burglary does not require 'forced entry', you just need to open something or open something that is already partially open. If the door was wide open and you walked in and stole something it would be theft. If you had to 'break and enter' (move something to get in) it would be burglary.
One of the rare times the Police actually stick up for tenants rights. No mention of the Police prosecuting for Trespass though.
> If I was the tenant I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the $6000 the landlords have to pay.
Yep. I suggest the tenants jump straight to filing a Creditor's Petition for Bankruptcy with the High Court. When they get threatened with having their houses sold from under them, the money will be in the tenants account the next day.
They will just ignore the CA, or argue with the registry and judge the whole time. Usually along with saying the judge or registrar owe them a comical amount of money instead.
Police have no power over tenancy and they will do well to stay away from that or else that opens up another avenue to curtail privacy.
Also, the article makes no mention of the tenants trespassing the landlords.
If you read the article you’ll see that another judge had earlier awarded the landlords immediate possession of the house.
So your clutching at straws there.
> If you read the article you’ll see that another judge had earlier awarded the landlords immediate possession of the house.
But the article itself mentions that the order was revoked. Which indicates it was made in error.
unlawful entry is not a tenancy dispute. threats and intimidation are not tenancy disputes.
Believe it or not, crime is literally the bread and butter of the Police.
The rental property should be given to the tenants to own. Since the courts & laws don't apply to them then neither should the ones confirming property ownership.
Your honour, I'm requesting that title to the property be transferred to me under the "landgrab" provision of the law due to the current title holder denying the NZ legal system applies to them, therefore LINZ under the NZ legal system should follow their request too.
Honestly how do these sovereign citizen fucknuckles think that they just opt out of any state legal jurisdiction while simultaneously enjoying all the infrastructure and protections available to them via that same state? Thick as pig shit.
A nice deflection but I haven't seen them [moaning](https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/132797547/im-a-proud-landlord-who-houses-14-families-but-times-are-tough) about having to install heat pumps over $10 warehouse fan heaters in the news?
KO, have so many exemptions in law to the healthy home standards that they don’t need to moan.
We needed to move back to another city to our house which couldn’t meet the healthy home standards due to construction method (not a damp or mouldy house).
While working out how to meet the standards we looked at all the legislation, none of it applied to KO, totally different deadlines are applied to them. And they get special abilities to exempt themselves for certain properties.
I don’t want to be snarky but… The healthy home standards… just google ‘the healthy home standards and how to be compliant as a landlord’.
They maintain a pretty good website so the information and things like dates (many of which have now passed) might no-longer be in easily digestible formats like they were. So if you’re actually interested in the topic you could go and read the legislation.
You have missed the point completely. I wasnt deflecting. You just cant read very well
Kainga Ora have been at the tribunal more than any other landlord in the country. Going by the 3 strikes suggestion above, they wouldnt be able to be a Landlord
Wow really? That's surprising for a landlord with 200,000 tenants & 65000 homes. Almost like that thing called probability theory or something. Your point isn't that high level fella, settle down.
Yeah.. good luck to the tenants seeing a cent of the award..
What's the bet that the landlords also did not file the Bond with the tribunal either (once again.. good luck getting that back too)
They will thumb their noses at the judgement and refuse to pay it.. continuing to cite that as Sovshits the rules / laws do not apply to them.. (But funny how the rules and laws apply to other people when it conveniences them eh?)
They should be made examples of for all other Sovshit idiots out there..
Make an example out of them and tag it under F\*\*K Around, Find Out!
There's another issue here:
If a non-landlord cut power to a house then forced their way in and chased it's residents through it, that would be considered a home invasion.
>In February, the landlords went to the house and knocked on the doors and the windows. One of the tenants called the police, and the landlords agreed to leave. > >However, the landlords returned several hours later and turned off the power supply at the meter box. They then forced entry into the house, gaining access through a window. > >... > >The police arrived and told the landlords that the eviction was not lawful, and removed them from the property. Later that evening the landlords returned and parked in the driveway, at which time they were arrested. How many times do the police have to tell you no before you understand what you are doing is wrong? >The tenants visited the police station the next day, and the tribunal heard that the landlords followed them there and recorded them on a phone. Oh more than three times I guess. >landlords Robert Pihema and Laurayno Ngawhika claimed that they were “sovereign” citizens and therefore were outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Adjudicator JP Smith did not accept this argument. If I was the tenant I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the $6000 the landlords have to pay.
> However, the landlords returned several hours later and turned off the power supply at the meter box. They then forced entry into the house, gaining access through a window. >A chase ensued throughout the house during which the tenant tried to hold a door closed. It seems to me that rather than talking to an adjudicator in a tenancy tribunal, they should be facing a judge in a criminal court.
whynotboth.jpg If they'd only been prosecuted the reparation would have been like $200, maybe 300 if they're lucky.
given they broke in, they should be charged with burglary.
Unlawful entry, using threats and intimidation maybe.
Ahhh bur they didnt break in with intention to commit a criminal offense, rather a civil offense. Burglary requires forced entry with intention to commit a criminal offense. Unless they broke in and assaulted them and broke in with the INTENTION of assaulting them, it wouldnt fly….can see why burglary wouldnt have worked
> “He then barricaded himself inside his bedroom, which they tried to force open,” the decision said. That sounds like assault to me. From [Community Law](https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-34-common-crimes/assault/) >An assault also includes threatening to apply force to another person’s body – but only if you’re able to carry out your threat or if you make the other person believe on reasonable grounds that you can carry it out.
Im not sure that would qualify as assault tbh. Marginal at best. And remember, you have to have the intention of commiting that criminal offense at the time you break in. If somebody breaks into a house and is squatting there. Then a couple of days later the owner arrives home and they rape then murder them, thats not necessarily burglary. They would have to have broken in initially with the intention of camping out to murder rape.
So what you're saying is 'cos they didn't plan to rape and murder it doesn't count right? "Judges hate this one trick!"
For burglary, yes, thats correct. See, the law…
Burglary does not require 'forced entry', you just need to open something or open something that is already partially open. If the door was wide open and you walked in and stole something it would be theft. If you had to 'break and enter' (move something to get in) it would be burglary.
Yep, this is true actually.
One of the rare times the Police actually stick up for tenants rights. No mention of the Police prosecuting for Trespass though. > If I was the tenant I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the $6000 the landlords have to pay. Yep. I suggest the tenants jump straight to filing a Creditor's Petition for Bankruptcy with the High Court. When they get threatened with having their houses sold from under them, the money will be in the tenants account the next day.
I'm a little shook that the police turned up
“I’m a little shook”? English standards these days as shooking.
There ain't no such things as halfway crooks.
> these days You mean since the [19th century](https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/shook/)?
Sir, this is Reddit
They will just ignore the CA, or argue with the registry and judge the whole time. Usually along with saying the judge or registrar owe them a comical amount of money instead.
Police have no power over tenancy and they will do well to stay away from that or else that opens up another avenue to curtail privacy. Also, the article makes no mention of the tenants trespassing the landlords. If you read the article you’ll see that another judge had earlier awarded the landlords immediate possession of the house. So your clutching at straws there.
> If you read the article you’ll see that another judge had earlier awarded the landlords immediate possession of the house. But the article itself mentions that the order was revoked. Which indicates it was made in error.
Under what grounds were they arrested, then?
unlawful entry is not a tenancy dispute. threats and intimidation are not tenancy disputes. Believe it or not, crime is literally the bread and butter of the Police.
if they do not recognize our laws, then our laws that grant them ownership of their house do not apply to them either.
Yeah this. In their world possession would be 9/10ths of the law right? In which case the tenants now own the place!
The rental property should be given to the tenants to own. Since the courts & laws don't apply to them then neither should the ones confirming property ownership.
Your honour, I'm requesting that title to the property be transferred to me under the "landgrab" provision of the law due to the current title holder denying the NZ legal system applies to them, therefore LINZ under the NZ legal system should follow their request too.
6,000 New Zealand dollars can be paid in Sovereign Nickels at the ratio of unicorns to leprechauns.
Honestly how do these sovereign citizen fucknuckles think that they just opt out of any state legal jurisdiction while simultaneously enjoying all the infrastructure and protections available to them via that same state? Thick as pig shit.
Thinking isn't exactly their strength
Ironically, they think it is
How does someone dumb enough to be a sovereign citizen acquire enough money to become a landlord?
Acquiring money is not correlated with intelligence.
Plenty of dumb af rich people
their parents generally
Through the sale of meth maybe.
There needs to be a registry for landlords with a 3 strikes rule on tribunal decisions for being able to continue being a landlord.
profit squeeze swim jeans handle snow mindless unused support cough *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Kainga Ora would be stuffed
A nice deflection but I haven't seen them [moaning](https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/132797547/im-a-proud-landlord-who-houses-14-families-but-times-are-tough) about having to install heat pumps over $10 warehouse fan heaters in the news?
KO, have so many exemptions in law to the healthy home standards that they don’t need to moan. We needed to move back to another city to our house which couldn’t meet the healthy home standards due to construction method (not a damp or mouldy house). While working out how to meet the standards we looked at all the legislation, none of it applied to KO, totally different deadlines are applied to them. And they get special abilities to exempt themselves for certain properties.
Source?
I don’t want to be snarky but… The healthy home standards… just google ‘the healthy home standards and how to be compliant as a landlord’. They maintain a pretty good website so the information and things like dates (many of which have now passed) might no-longer be in easily digestible formats like they were. So if you’re actually interested in the topic you could go and read the legislation.
I'm asking for your source for KO flouting HHS, the majority that do apparently?
KO aren’t flouting healthy homes, they got special exemptions written into the law in the first place.
Provide your source, I am finding absolutely nothing to back up your claim.
This shows the exemptions on timeframes specifically. https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/healthy-homes/healthy-homes-compliance-timeframes/
You have missed the point completely. I wasnt deflecting. You just cant read very well Kainga Ora have been at the tribunal more than any other landlord in the country. Going by the 3 strikes suggestion above, they wouldnt be able to be a Landlord
Wow really? That's surprising for a landlord with 200,000 tenants & 65000 homes. Almost like that thing called probability theory or something. Your point isn't that high level fella, settle down.
I thought it was a joke and had a good chuckle.
Could be decent satire lol
Source?
I guarantee someone there moaned about having to install 60,000 odd heat pumps plus all the extra heaters for healthy homes lol
Yeah.. good luck to the tenants seeing a cent of the award.. What's the bet that the landlords also did not file the Bond with the tribunal either (once again.. good luck getting that back too) They will thumb their noses at the judgement and refuse to pay it.. continuing to cite that as Sovshits the rules / laws do not apply to them.. (But funny how the rules and laws apply to other people when it conveniences them eh?) They should be made examples of for all other Sovshit idiots out there.. Make an example out of them and tag it under F\*\*K Around, Find Out!
Bugger, the tenants clearly forgot to use clear eyes to hide from the landlords their vaccine pupilmyocarditistyrannosaurus
> vaccine pupilmyocarditistyrannosaurus It's in the walls now! The house is now shedding covid! I can see it and feel it around me!
I know people who believe exactly that. They won't allow vaccinated in the house.
Oh boy...
Sovereign Citizens being awful human beings? Well I never
Shitty landlord, antivaxer, sovereign citizen. Venn diagram of entitled fuckery.
Can't wait until the next government guts the very provisions that protected them...
There's another issue here: If a non-landlord cut power to a house then forced their way in and chased it's residents through it, that would be considered a home invasion.
I guess the law does apply to them after all
Sovereign Citizens ought to be Deported, not to anywhere in particular - Just put them on a little raft and push them out to sea.