What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4684349 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s name and details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 4684349?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4684349?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4684349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9610901-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4684349 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s name and details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 4684349?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4684349?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4684349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9610901-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1E, 16 Liverpool Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4684349 — 14-day notice

Order

The landlord’s name and details are suppressed.
The tenancy of Paul Maru and [The landlord/s] at Unit/Flat 1E, 16 Liverpool Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, City Lights Apartments is terminated, and possession of the premises is to be returned to the landlord on 27 November 2023 at 5pm.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant called a witness at the hearing, who gave evidence on his behalf, Mr Taufa. The landlord called a witness also, being the building manager, [The building manager].
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order under s 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), terminating the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission. The landlord alternatively applies for termination under s 55(1)(c) of the RTA, on the grounds that the tenant caused or permitted a person to assault an occupier of the building of which the premises constitute a part. Termination under s 55(1)(c) of the RTA
The premises are an apartment unit, located at 16 Liverpool St, Auckland Central. It is comprised of apartments, common area and carparks.
Typical of such buildings, the owners must comply with the body corporate rules. Under the tenancy agreement, the tenant was required to comply with those rules.
One of the rules provides that occupants may not park cars anywhere in the common area other than within their allocated carpark space. Occupants must also ensure that their guests and invitees comply with those rules.
On 5 September, a guest of the tenant, “Kate”, parked her car in an area that was not the tenant’s allocated carpark. One of the occupants of the car was Kate’s daughter, “Tia”. A body corporate committee member observed that the car was not parked in the correct space and began taking photos. Tia become aggressive and grabbed the phone out of her hands, smashing it. She also commenced pushing and shoving the committee member.
The tenant was not there at the time but when he learned what was happening he immediately came to the carpark area to try and calm the situation down.
The committee member later made a complaint to the police and a police report file number was provided to the Tribunal.
The tenant accepted that this had occurred and added that he was a co-owner of the car. The tenant therefore denies none of the forgoing events. His position is that although Tia was in the building with his permission, he was not personally there when the above events started and is not responsible for what took place. As soon as he found out what was happening he attempted to mediate the situation. He stresses that his intentions were sound.
Section 55(1)(c) is clear in its wording. If there is an assault committed by a person permitted to be at the premises by the tenant, and if that assault takes place against any occupier of the building of which the premises constitute a part, then the provisions states that the Tribunal “shall” make an order for termination. The only discretion I have to instead allow for a conditional termination if I am satisfied that it is “unlikely the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which..... paragraph (c) applies”.
I am not satisfied that it is unlikely the tenant will commit any futher breach. One of the reasons is that the tenant also accepted he had been involved in an incident of breaking into a car of another occupant of the premises. This was the subject of a notice dated 26 June 2023, where it was alleged: The tenant of 1E/16 Liverpool St (Paul Maru) along with another male entered the building car park and went through a vehicle which was parked in car park 3H. (details and time listed below) - The footage of the incident as captured on the CCTV camera has been reported to the police by the BC.
The tenant fully accepted this.
Another reason is that the tenant accepted that another guest, permitted on to the premises by him on 19 October 2023, set off the emergency exit release, thus compromising the security of the building and triggering a call out fee.
The tenancy will be terminated, as ordered above.
Because I have allowed a termination under s 55(1)(c) of the RTA, I have not considered termination on the alternative grounds, however, I note that whilst Mr Maru did accept some aspects of the relevant notices, he strongly denies other aspects, in particular that he has engaged in any drug deals or smoking of marijuana on the premises. He stressed that he is feeling victimised and singled out, and clearly there has been acrimony between himself and the building manager, which has not been helpful to the relationship.
Had I been required to consider termination on those grounds, I would have exercised some caution, as I would need to have been satisfied that even if all the alleged events did take place, that they met the definition of anti social behaviour set out in the RTA. That definition clearly means something more than a minor nuisance, that is sustained and is at the “harassment” level.
I am not prepared to make the termination immediate, but instead allow the tenant adequate time to consult with the various agencies discussed in the hearing that should be available to assist him.

Order

The landlord’s name and details are suppressed.
The tenancy of Paul Maru and [The landlord/s] at Unit/Flat 1E, 16 Liverpool Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, City Lights Apartments is terminated, and possession of the premises is to be returned to the landlord on 27 November 2023 at 5pm.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant called a witness at the hearing, who gave evidence on his behalf, Mr Taufa. The landlord called a witness also, being the building manager, [The building manager].
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order under s 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), terminating the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission. The landlord alternatively applies for termination under s 55(1)(c) of the RTA, on the grounds that the tenant caused or permitted a person to assault an occupier of the building of which the premises constitute a part. Termination under s 55(1)(c) of the RTA
The premises are an apartment unit, located at 16 Liverpool St, Auckland Central. It is comprised of apartments, common area and carparks.
Typical of such buildings, the owners must comply with the body corporate rules. Under the tenancy agreement, the tenant was required to comply with those rules.
One of the rules provides that occupants may not park cars anywhere in the common area other than within their allocated carpark space. Occupants must also ensure that their guests and invitees comply with those rules.
On 5 September, a guest of the tenant, “Kate”, parked her car in an area that was not the tenant’s allocated carpark. One of the occupants of the car was Kate’s daughter, “Tia”. A body corporate committee member observed that the car was not parked in the correct space and began taking photos. Tia become aggressive and grabbed the phone out of her hands, smashing it. She also commenced pushing and shoving the committee member.
The tenant was not there at the time but when he learned what was happening he immediately came to the carpark area to try and calm the situation down.
The committee member later made a complaint to the police and a police report file number was provided to the Tribunal.
The tenant accepted that this had occurred and added that he was a co-owner of the car. The tenant therefore denies none of the forgoing events. His position is that although Tia was in the building with his permission, he was not personally there when the above events started and is not responsible for what took place. As soon as he found out what was happening he attempted to mediate the situation. He stresses that his intentions were sound.
Section 55(1)(c) is clear in its wording. If there is an assault committed by a person permitted to be at the premises by the tenant, and if that assault takes place against any occupier of the building of which the premises constitute a part, then the provisions states that the Tribunal “shall” make an order for termination. The only discretion I have to instead allow for a conditional termination if I am satisfied that it is “unlikely the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which..... paragraph (c) applies”.
I am not satisfied that it is unlikely the tenant will commit any futher breach. One of the reasons is that the tenant also accepted he had been involved in an incident of breaking into a car of another occupant of the premises. This was the subject of a notice dated 26 June 2023, where it was alleged: The tenant of 1E/16 Liverpool St (Paul Maru) along with another male entered the building car park and went through a vehicle which was parked in car park 3H. (details and time listed below) - The footage of the incident as captured on the CCTV camera has been reported to the police by the BC.
The tenant fully accepted this.
Another reason is that the tenant accepted that another guest, permitted on to the premises by him on 19 October 2023, set off the emergency exit release, thus compromising the security of the building and triggering a call out fee.
The tenancy will be terminated, as ordered above.
Because I have allowed a termination under s 55(1)(c) of the RTA, I have not considered termination on the alternative grounds, however, I note that whilst Mr Maru did accept some aspects of the relevant notices, he strongly denies other aspects, in particular that he has engaged in any drug deals or smoking of marijuana on the premises. He stressed that he is feeling victimised and singled out, and clearly there has been acrimony between himself and the building manager, which has not been helpful to the relationship.
Had I been required to consider termination on those grounds, I would have exercised some caution, as I would need to have been satisfied that even if all the alleged events did take place, that they met the definition of anti social behaviour set out in the RTA. That definition clearly means something more than a minor nuisance, that is sustained and is at the “harassment” level.
I am not prepared to make the termination immediate, but instead allow the tenant adequate time to consult with the various agencies discussed in the hearing that should be available to assist him.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4684349 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 1E, 16 Liverpool Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4684349 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 1E, 16 Liverpool Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions