What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4713071?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to the publication of this order.

How much money was awarded in case 4713071?

Body Corporate Committee Fees: $528.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Emergency Light: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Mailbox: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Security Callout: $235.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713071?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9690524-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4713071?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to the publication of this order.

How much money was awarded in case 4713071?

Body Corporate Committee Fees: $528.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Emergency Light: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Mailbox: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Security Callout: $235.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713071?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9690524-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 312, 15 Union Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4713071 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4713071. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Emergency light	$287.50	Repairs: Emergency light
Security callout	$235.75	Security callout
Repairs: Mailbox	$195.50	Repairs: Mailbox
Body Corporate committee fees	$528.75	Body Corporate committee fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

No suppression orders apply to the publication of this order.
The tenancy of Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited and any of its subtenants at Unit/Flat 312, 15 Union Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts New Lynn As Agent For Yuan Fei Wang, at 5:00 pm Sunday 17 th December 2023.
Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited to pay Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts New Lynn As Agent For Yuan Fei Wang $1,267.94 calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 27 th November 2023.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The tenant is a social housing provider.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant has breached their obligations by causing or permitting interference with the reasonable peace, and comfort of other persons residing in the neighbourhood. This included the tenant stealing mail and damaging the mailbox and playing loud music at late hours of the night into early hours of the morning.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 17 th October 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant did not stop the loud music playing but continued instead.
Since the application had been filed, there were 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period where the anti-social behaviour continued. Notices were given appropriately according to the anti-social behaviour provisions.
Furthermore, the tenant did not dispute the termination sought by the landlord.
Accordingly, I grant the landlord’s application for termination.
The tenancy of Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited and any of its subtenants at Unit/Flat 312, 15 Union Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts New Lynn As Agent For Yuan Fei Wang, at 5:00 pm Sunday 17 th December 2023. Compensation claims
The landlord sought compensation for the invoices issued by the Body Corporate to the landlord.
For damage claims, 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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 sought compensation for: a. Fixing and resetting the emergency alarm broken by the tenant: $287.50 b. Additional security hired to attend assault, disorder and threats: $235.75 c. Replace the mailbox and supply keys: $195.50 d. Failed methamphetamine screening in 2020: $293.25 e. Failed methamphetamine screening in 2023: $304.75 f. Body Corporate committee’s time for issuing breach notices for the premises: $528.75; and g. Extra security fee of $3,360.01.
Having gone through the evidence with both parties, the tenant did not dispute the listed claims except the two methamphetamine screening costs and the extra security fee of $3,360.01.
I agree with the tenant as neither of the methamphetamine screening tests resulted in readings above the 15 ug/100cm 2 , I find that the tenant is not liable for the screening fees.
Although I accept that this is higher than the 1.5 ug/100cm 2 New Zealand standard, the screening reports make clear about the distinction between the two standards.
For the extra security fee, the email thread between the Police and the Body Corporate makes it clear that additional security was hired between 20 th March 2023 and 3 rd April 2023 to assist with the gathering of evidence in relation to four apartments, a hair salon and the lower terrace.
Despite the original intention, it does not seem that there was anything found that assisted the Police in gathering evidence to obtain a search warrant in relation to the tenant’s apartment.
The other breaches picked up by the extra security were not necessarily anything more than what CCTV would have picked up in any case and does not warrant any compensation from the tenant.
I dismiss the claim for extra security. Filing fee reimbursement
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the application, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4713071. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Emergency light	$287.50	Repairs: Emergency light
Security callout	$235.75	Security callout
Repairs: Mailbox	$195.50	Repairs: Mailbox
Body Corporate committee fees	$528.75	Body Corporate committee fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

No suppression orders apply to the publication of this order.
The tenancy of Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited and any of its subtenants at Unit/Flat 312, 15 Union Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts New Lynn As Agent For Yuan Fei Wang, at 5:00 pm Sunday 17 th December 2023.
Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited to pay Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts New Lynn As Agent For Yuan Fei Wang $1,267.94 calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 27 th November 2023.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The tenant is a social housing provider.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant has breached their obligations by causing or permitting interference with the reasonable peace, and comfort of other persons residing in the neighbourhood. This included the tenant stealing mail and damaging the mailbox and playing loud music at late hours of the night into early hours of the morning.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 17 th October 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant did not stop the loud music playing but continued instead.
Since the application had been filed, there were 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period where the anti-social behaviour continued. Notices were given appropriately according to the anti-social behaviour provisions.
Furthermore, the tenant did not dispute the termination sought by the landlord.
Accordingly, I grant the landlord’s application for termination.
The tenancy of Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited and any of its subtenants at Unit/Flat 312, 15 Union Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts New Lynn As Agent For Yuan Fei Wang, at 5:00 pm Sunday 17 th December 2023. Compensation claims
The landlord sought compensation for the invoices issued by the Body Corporate to the landlord.
For damage claims, 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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 sought compensation for: a. Fixing and resetting the emergency alarm broken by the tenant: $287.50 b. Additional security hired to attend assault, disorder and threats: $235.75 c. Replace the mailbox and supply keys: $195.50 d. Failed methamphetamine screening in 2020: $293.25 e. Failed methamphetamine screening in 2023: $304.75 f. Body Corporate committee’s time for issuing breach notices for the premises: $528.75; and g. Extra security fee of $3,360.01.
Having gone through the evidence with both parties, the tenant did not dispute the listed claims except the two methamphetamine screening costs and the extra security fee of $3,360.01.
I agree with the tenant as neither of the methamphetamine screening tests resulted in readings above the 15 ug/100cm 2 , I find that the tenant is not liable for the screening fees.
Although I accept that this is higher than the 1.5 ug/100cm 2 New Zealand standard, the screening reports make clear about the distinction between the two standards.
For the extra security fee, the email thread between the Police and the Body Corporate makes it clear that additional security was hired between 20 th March 2023 and 3 rd April 2023 to assist with the gathering of evidence in relation to four apartments, a hair salon and the lower terrace.
Despite the original intention, it does not seem that there was anything found that assisted the Police in gathering evidence to obtain a search warrant in relation to the tenant’s apartment.
The other breaches picked up by the extra security were not necessarily anything more than what CCTV would have picked up in any case and does not warrant any compensation from the tenant.
I dismiss the claim for extra security. Filing fee reimbursement
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the application, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713071 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 312, 15 Union Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713071 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 312, 15 Union Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions