What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4676791?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Veronika Hauzrova at Unit/Flat 605, 8 Waikumete Road, Glen

How much money was awarded in case 4676791?

Cleaning: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Electricity (Current Balance Owing: $369.88 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Locked Out Access Provided: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.58 awarded to landlord; Replace Fire Extinguisher (X1: $261.28 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $522.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4676791?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4676791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9712315-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4676791?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Veronika Hauzrova at Unit/Flat 605, 8 Waikumete Road, Glen

How much money was awarded in case 4676791?

Cleaning: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Electricity (Current Balance Owing: $369.88 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Locked Out Access Provided: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.58 awarded to landlord; Replace Fire Extinguisher (X1: $261.28 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $522.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4676791?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4676791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9712315-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 605, 8 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4676791 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4676791 — net $1,230.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$522.41	Water rates
Electricity (current balance owing	$369.88	Electricity (current balance owing
Replace fire extinguisher (x1	$261.28	Replace fire extinguisher (x1
Repairing wall and replacing fire extinguisher holder	$400.58	Repairing wall and replacing fire extinguisher holder
Cleaning spill in lift lobby	$57.50	Cleaning spill in lift lobby
Rubbish removal (x2	$100.00	Rubbish removal (x2
Locked out access provided	$50.00	Locked out access provided
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,230.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,230.09

Order

The tenancy of Veronika Hauzrova at Unit/Flat 605, 8 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 is terminated, and possession is granted to Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited, at 5pm on Thursday 7 December 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $552.00 (6409130-002) to Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited immediately.
Veronika Hauzrova must pay Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited $1,230.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Mr Palalei as property manager with the assistance of Mr Rapues, the building manager.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission, together with orders in respect of unpaid water, electricity and maintenance charges.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is as follows:
02.09.2023Tenant, female and unidentified male banging on corridor door to gain access at 7.03pm
03.09.2023Tenant, female and unidentified male banging on corridor door to gain access at 7.50pm Notice of anti-social behaviour served on 04.09.2023
07.09.2023Tenant, female and same unidentified male banging on corridor to gain access between 10.59pm and 11.17pm Notice of anti-social behaviour served on 07.09.2023
08.09.2023Two young females and a male verbally abusing another resident and throwing five full bags of rubbish from the balcony
10.09.2023Unidentified visitor throwing full bag of rubbish from the balcony Notice of anti-social behaviour served on 11.09.2023
15.09.2023Tenant and unidentified male forcing unit door open damaging door jam and door closer Notice of anti-social behaviour served on 15.09.2023
25.09.2023Unidentified male companion of tenant banging on corridor door to gain entry
26.09.2023Female visitor banging and kicking on door to gain entry Notice of anti-social behaviour served on 26.09.2023
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above. The landlord has presented both still and video CCTV footage of the tenant and associates banging on the lobby doors (having lost their swipe card and followed another resident in through the main entrance), a statement from another resident regarding the verbal abuse and rubbish (together with pictures of the rubbish) an image of a young person associated with the tenant kicking a hole in the lobby wall, and images of the broken door.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The tenant has paid rent up until 7 December 2023 and so I have granted possession back to the landlord on that date.

How much is owed for water, electricity and maintenance fees?

The landlord provided records showing that the tenant owes $522.41 for water and $369.88 for electricity. The landlord explained that the tenant has been paying a set fee of $65.00 per week for water and electricity but that there have been multiple people staying at the tenancy and so the charges are much higher than expected.
The amounts are proved.
The maintenance fees related to various call outs for rubbish removal, locked out access fees and damage.
The landlord produced unpaid invoices relating to a “locked out” access fee ($50.00), cleaning up the rubbish thrown off the balcony (total of $100.00) and cleaning up a spill in the lift area ($57.50). These amounts are proved.
The maintenance fees in respect of the fire extinguishers and damage to the wall are claims for damage. The landlord claimed the cost of replacing two fire extinguishers taken from the lobby outside the tenant’s apartment, and for replacing a fire extinguisher holder and repairing a wall that was kicked by the tenant’s associate.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord produced CCTV footage of the tenant removing a fire extinguisher from the lobby outside the apartment and I was told that the hose was then cut. Another fire extinguisher had been taken earlier also but I cannot be certain that the first fire extinguisher was in fact taken by the tenant and so I have only ordered half of the amount of the invoice claimed (for the second extinguisher).
The landlord produced still CCTV footage of the tenant’s associate kicking the wall together with the photos of the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. I do not consider that any amount should be deducted in this case given the nature of the items damaged.
In this claim the landlord had also sought compensation for a replacing a toilet seat and repairing a corridor door handle but withdrew these claims at the hearing so that they could include these claims in an additional claim which is yet to be filed.
Because Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4676791 — net $1,230.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$522.41	Water rates
Electricity (current balance owing	$369.88	Electricity (current balance owing
Replace fire extinguisher (x1	$261.28	Replace fire extinguisher (x1
Repairing wall and replacing fire extinguisher holder	$400.58	Repairing wall and replacing fire extinguisher holder
Cleaning spill in lift lobby	$57.50	Cleaning spill in lift lobby
Rubbish removal (x2	$100.00	Rubbish removal (x2
Locked out access provided	$50.00	Locked out access provided
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,230.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,230.09

Order

The tenancy of Veronika Hauzrova at Unit/Flat 605, 8 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 is terminated, and possession is granted to Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited, at 5pm on Thursday 7 December 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $552.00 (6409130-002) to Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited immediately.
Veronika Hauzrova must pay Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited $1,230.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, represented by Mr Palalei as property manager with the assistance of Mr Rapues, the building manager.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission, together with orders in respect of unpaid water, electricity and maintenance charges.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is as follows:
02.09.2023Tenant, female and unidentified male banging on corridor door to gain access at 7.03pm
03.09.2023Tenant, female and unidentified male banging on corridor door to gain access at 7.50pm Notice of anti-social behaviour served on 04.09.2023
07.09.2023Tenant, female and same unidentified male banging on corridor to gain access between 10.59pm and 11.17pm Notice of anti-social behaviour served on 07.09.2023
08.09.2023Two young females and a male verbally abusing another resident and throwing five full bags of rubbish from the balcony
10.09.2023Unidentified visitor throwing full bag of rubbish from the balcony Notice of anti-social behaviour served on 11.09.2023
15.09.2023Tenant and unidentified male forcing unit door open damaging door jam and door closer Notice of anti-social behaviour served on 15.09.2023
25.09.2023Unidentified male companion of tenant banging on corridor door to gain entry
26.09.2023Female visitor banging and kicking on door to gain entry Notice of anti-social behaviour served on 26.09.2023
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above. The landlord has presented both still and video CCTV footage of the tenant and associates banging on the lobby doors (having lost their swipe card and followed another resident in through the main entrance), a statement from another resident regarding the verbal abuse and rubbish (together with pictures of the rubbish) an image of a young person associated with the tenant kicking a hole in the lobby wall, and images of the broken door.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The tenant has paid rent up until 7 December 2023 and so I have granted possession back to the landlord on that date.

How much is owed for water, electricity and maintenance fees?

The landlord provided records showing that the tenant owes $522.41 for water and $369.88 for electricity. The landlord explained that the tenant has been paying a set fee of $65.00 per week for water and electricity but that there have been multiple people staying at the tenancy and so the charges are much higher than expected.
The amounts are proved.
The maintenance fees related to various call outs for rubbish removal, locked out access fees and damage.
The landlord produced unpaid invoices relating to a “locked out” access fee ($50.00), cleaning up the rubbish thrown off the balcony (total of $100.00) and cleaning up a spill in the lift area ($57.50). These amounts are proved.
The maintenance fees in respect of the fire extinguishers and damage to the wall are claims for damage. The landlord claimed the cost of replacing two fire extinguishers taken from the lobby outside the tenant’s apartment, and for replacing a fire extinguisher holder and repairing a wall that was kicked by the tenant’s associate.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord produced CCTV footage of the tenant removing a fire extinguisher from the lobby outside the apartment and I was told that the hose was then cut. Another fire extinguisher had been taken earlier also but I cannot be certain that the first fire extinguisher was in fact taken by the tenant and so I have only ordered half of the amount of the invoice claimed (for the second extinguisher).
The landlord produced still CCTV footage of the tenant’s associate kicking the wall together with the photos of the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. I do not consider that any amount should be deducted in this case given the nature of the items damaged.
In this claim the landlord had also sought compensation for a replacing a toilet seat and repairing a corridor door handle but withdrew these claims at the hearing so that they could include these claims in an additional claim which is yet to be filed.
Because Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4676791 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 605, 8 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4676791 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 605, 8 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for water, electricity and maintenance fees?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for water, electricity and maintenance fees?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions