What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4808398?

The tribunal order states: Yvonne Tusha Waitere and Sebastian Waitere to pay Barfoot & Thompson

How much money was awarded in case 4808398?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $263.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $680.00 awarded to landlord; Lower Roller Door: $862.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808398?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808398?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10246308-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4808398?

The tribunal order states: Yvonne Tusha Waitere and Sebastian Waitere to pay Barfoot & Thompson

How much money was awarded in case 4808398?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $263.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $680.00 awarded to landlord; Lower Roller Door: $862.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808398?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808398?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10246308-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat GG, 16 Liverpool Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4808398 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat GG, 16 Liverpool Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4808398 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4808398 — net $2,032.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears for one week	$680.00	Rent arrears for one week
Lock replacement	$263.00	Lock replacement
Repairs: Lower roller door	$862.50	Repairs: Lower roller door
Front door damage inspection	$207.00	Front door damage inspection
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,032.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,032.94

Claims and awards for application 4808398 — net $2,032.94 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears for one week

Amount: $680.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears for one week

Lock replacement

Amount: $263.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock replacement

Repairs: Lower roller door

Amount: $862.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Lower roller door

Front door damage inspection

Amount: $207.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Front door damage inspection

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

Yvonne Tusha Waitere and Sebastian Waitere to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited - Ellerslie As Agent For Luke Luk $2,032.94 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The hearing was held on 23 April 2024.
Mr Nassiri attended the hearing as the landlord's agent.
Ms Waitere attended the hearing as the tenant.
In the hearing, Mr Nassiri called the following witnesses: a. Mr Misiloi – the building manager. b. Mr Waugh – an inspector from Cornerstone Security.
The dispute first went before Adjudicator Mr Steens on 1 March 2024. Mr Nassiri made an application to terminate the tenancy. Adjudicator Mr Steens heard submissions from both parties and decided to terminate the tenancy.
The issue of the vacated tenancy was supposed to go back to Adjudicator Mr Steens for a hearing. However, since Adjudicator Mr Steens does not regularly sit in Auckland, I was assigned the matter for determination.
The hearing before me today is that the landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The Tribunal terminated the tenancy on 1 March 2024 at 5 p.m. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Ms Waitere’s submissions
However, Ms Waitere complained that if Mr Nassiri had included the $680 (one- week rent), she would not have owed $680. Ms Waitere submitted: a. When the landlord evicted her per the Tribunal Order of 1 March 2024, she went to Work and Income to get them to pay her rent directly to the landlord. However, Work and Income cancelled that payment when she was evicted, so the landlord did not receive the $680. b. After she was evicted, her accommodation supplement and temporary assistance from Work and Income were cut, and she had to use emergency housing. This left her with only $160 per week, not enough to pay the $680. c. She said if the landlord had not evicted her without notice, she would have ensured Work and Income paid the $680 before she was evicted.
In summary, Ms Waitere submitted that due to her sudden eviction and loss of income support, she was unable to pay the $680 rent that was owed. She blamed the eviction and loss of benefits for leaving her unable to pay. Mr Nassiri’s submissions
In reply, Mr Nassiri said: a. The $680 represents one week of unpaid rent from Ms Waitere's tenancy. b. Ms Waitere was given notice about her rent arrears over a 90-day period through 3 notices stating that failure to pay could lead to a Tribunal hearing. c. Ms Waitere was able to get Work and Income to pay most of her back rent using her benefits, but there remained a shortfall of $680 for the last unpaid week from 10 to 16 February 2024.
Mr Nassiri's position is that Ms Waitere still owes $680 in unpaid rent despite Work and Income paying most of the other back rent. Ms Waitere had sufficient notice to pay it. Conclusion
I do not accept Ms. Waitere's submissions because paying rent is one of her responsibilities under Section 40(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 ("RTA"). The RTA does not have any provision that excuses Ms. Waitere from paying one week's rent arrears just because she receives rental assistance from Work and Income.
Mr Nassiri provided a rent summary to prove the unpaid rent.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that Ms Waitere is liable for one week's rent arrears of $680.

Is Ms Waitere responsible for replacing the lock?

Ms Waitere did not dispute she needed to have the lock replaced for safety reasons. She said: a. On 13 February 2024, she called Mr Nassiri, believing her ex-partner, who was in jail, had arranged for people to break into her car and steal her keys. b. She was worried about her safety if those people used the keys to access her apartment, where she could be harmed. c. She asked Mr Nassiri to send a locksmith to change the locks to the apartment for her and the safety of the building's residents. d. Mr Nassiri agreed to arrange the lock change but told Ms Waitere she would have to pay since it was not the landlord's responsibility. e. Ms Waitere accepted the amount of $263 claimed.
The amount claimed is ordered by consent.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Lower roller door, and b. Front door. Garage Roller door – Was the damage intentional or careless?
This roller door is for the car park. How was the garage roller door damaged on 21 September 2023? I watched the CCTV footage in the hearing. I summarise what I saw as follows: a. Ms Waitere went to retrieve her personal belongings from her car parked in the garage. b. The garage door started closing as she returned to her partner outside. c. Her partner stood underneath the roller door and appeared to expect the sensor to detect him and reopen the door or to temporarily stop it to allow Ms Waitere to exit the garage without the need to “reopen” it. d. The roller door gently landed on her partner's back and continued closing. Then, it appeared a safety mechanism was triggered, causing the roller door to return to the opening position. e. Ms Waitere then exited the garage, but the roller door could no longer roll down and close the garage. f. Ms Waitere then tried the switch, but it did not work because the roller door was damaged.
Ms Waitere argues that her partner was standing under the malfunctioning door when the sensor failed to detect him and reopen. This caused the door to connect his back and get jammed as it tried to roll back up, damaging the door. She argues the damage was due to sensor error rather than her partner intentionally damaging the door.
Ms Waitere also argues the garage is not a common area. My view
I do not accept Ms Waitere's argument that the roller door malfunctioned because the sensor failed to detect her partner and reopen. It was her partner's responsibility to avoid standing underneath the roller door. By doing so, he put himself in harm's way.
While it is unfortunate that Ms Waitere's partner chose to stand underneath the roller door, he did not appear to have applied any force to it. Mr Nassiri did not dispute that Ms Waitere's partner was careless when he caused the roller door to jam.
I do not accept Ms Waitere's argument that the garage is not a common area. A common area is an area that residents can access. In the case of a garage, only residents with controllers can access it. In Ms Waitere’s case, she said: “Because all the other tenants of that building, they use the other car park inside the building. I'm the only one from that whole building that used that particular car park as the owner of my apartment,”
However, there are many cars in the garage, and Ms Waitere is one of the users of the garage. Therefore, the garage is a common area, and it is not exclusively for the benefit of Ms Waitere.
Mr Nassiri provided me with the Body Corporate Insurance Policy, which states that the excess for common area damage is $2,500. Since claiming against the policy would be more expensive, I find Ms Waitere is liable for the repair cost of $862.50.
I am satisfied that Ms Waitere is responsible for paying the repair cost. The amount ordered is proven.

Front door damage - Was the damage intentional or careless?

Mr Nassiri’s submissions

Mr Nassiri alleged Ms Waitere’s partner damaged the front door by kicking it. Mr Nassiri gave the following reasons why Ms Waitere should be liable for the front door damage. a. CCTV footage shows Ms Waitere's partner kicking the front door to the building three times on 16 August 2023. Ms Waitere accepts that her partner kicked the front door, and her partner was in the premises with her permission. b. The building manager, Mr Misiloi, emailed Mr Nassiri about Ms Waitere’s partner's actions and the potential damage caused. c. The Body Corporate requested an inspection of the door by Cornerstone Security on 29 August 2023 to assess the damage. d. The inspection found that the door was not closing and locking properly because it had been knocked out of alignment. Repairs would be needed. e. Cornerstone Security's inspection and quote for repairs were linked to Ms Waitere’s partner's actions of kicking the door in the CCTV footage. f. As a tenant, Ms Waitere is responsible for damages caused by her partner.
Mr Nassiri argues the evidence shows the front door damage was caused by Ms Waitere's partner kicking it three times, making her liable for inspection costs and repair bills as the tenant. Mr Waugh’s evidence
Mr Waugh from Cornerstone Security gave the following expert evidence about how the front door was damaged: a. Cornerstone Security was called out because the front door was not closing properly. b. When he inspected it, he found that the door was out of alignment and that the top magnetic lock would not engage to keep the door closed. c. He said this indicated that something had knocked the door out of alignment, as the doors normally operate reliably when he services the building. d. His assessment of the damage was that an external force had knocked the door out of alignment, and repairs were needed to realign and adjust the door and hinges. e. He confirmed that kicking the bottom half of the door is the worst thing a person can do, as it acts as a lever and twists the door, knocking it out of alignment with the top lock.
Mr Waugh's professional assessment was that the damage was consistent with the door being kicked forcefully at the bottom half, throwing it out of alignment so it could not close and lock properly anymore. Ms Waitere’s submissions
Ms Witere did not dispute that her partner kicked the front door, but she submitted why she said she was not liable for the inspection or repair costs. a. She argued that after her partner kicked the door, she was still able to open it with her key fob, indicating the door was still functional. b. She said it was not until later that someone else (an unnamed tenant) broke the glass panel on the lower part of the front door. c. She argued that Mr Waugh cannot definitively state her partner caused alignment/closure issues since the glass broke afterwards and may have impacted functioning. d. She suggested the $207 charge is just for inspecting suspected damage, but no repairs have been executed yet. e. She reiterated that her partner has agreed to pay for any damages he caused, but she disputes that he damaged the functioning of the door.
Ms Waitere does not believe the evidence can directly link the need for repairs to her partner's actions alone, and the inspection charge alone does not prove he damaged the door's functioning. Mr Misiloi’s evidence
In response to Ms Waitere’s assertion that the front door did not have a functional issue until an unnamed tenant broke the glass panel on the lower part of the front door, Mr Nassiri called the building manager, Mr Misiloi, to give evidence why Ms Waitere was not correct in her submissions.
Mr Misiloi (the building manager) gave the following reasons why Ms Waitere should be liable for the damage to the front door: a. He stated there were two separate incidents: i. Ms Waitere's partner kicked the door on 16 August 2023, which caused the door to become loose and out of alignment. ii. Another tenant broke the glass panel of the front door on 14 October 2023. b. He said the kicked door had to be inspected for damage, which is what the $207 charge relates to. This occurred before the glass-breaking incident. c. He reiterated that Ms Waitere's partner's initial kick damaged the door's structure and alignment, preventing it from closing properly. The later glass damage was unrelated.
Mr Misiloi attributes the damage to the door's alignment and ability to close/lock to Ms Waitere's partner's kicks. He argues that the later glass damage by someone else did not impact the underlying structural damage already done, which Ms Waitere is still liable for as the apartment's tenant because her partner was in the premises with Ms Witere’s permission.
Taking into account the submissions by both parties and the evidence from two witnesses, I am satisfied that Ms Waitere’s partner intentionally damaged the front door’s structure and alignment, preventing it from closing properly.
Ms Waitere is, therefore, liable for the inspection cost of $207.
Can Mr Nassiri prove that Ms Waitere is liable for the front door's repair cost, considering the length of time that has passed and the number of people who have used it? If Mr Nassiri decides to make another application before the Tribunal, this will be a live issue. I will leave it to Mr Nassiri to obtain instructions from his client regarding this matter. Emergency exit attendance cost
Mr Nassiri is seeking compensation from Ms Waitere because her partner activated the emergency exit button on 6 October 2023 at 3 p.m. and 7.12 p.m. Activating the emergency exit button breaches the Body Corporate rules. Each breach attracts a $500 cost for the building manager’s time.
I asked Mr Nassiri in the hearing the Body Corporate Operational Rules attached to the tenancy agreement did not appear to have a rule regarding activating the emergency exit button or the cost.
Mr. Nassiri called the building manager, Mr Misiloi, to provide evidence about how the rule was established. Mr Misiloi’s evidence
According to Mr Misiloi's evidence, the reasons the Body Corporate started charging people for opening the emergency exit were: a. They had recently upgraded the building's access control systems and security, requiring card access for the stairwells. b. There were ongoing issues with the emergency release being constantly activated, often at unreasonable hours. This was causing complaints from residents. c. A review of CCTV footage revealed resident Ms Waitere's partner repeatedly activated the emergency release when there was no emergency. d. Despite multiple verbal warnings to stop, the breaches continued. e. The Body Corporate chairman then decided that in the future, unit owners would be charged $500 when their tenants or visitors activated the emergency exit without an emergency. f. This charge was put in place to increase security, address resident complaints, and deter future non-emergency activations compromising building safety. Proper signage was also posted on the exit.
Mr Misiloi’s evidence is that the cost was instituted to address specific ongoing misuse of the emergency release by Ms Waitere's partner after other efforts failed to correct the behaviour. Mr Nassiri’s submissions
Mr Nassiri gave the following reasons why he believed Ms Waitere should be liable for the emergency exit release cost of $1,000. a. There is CCTV footage showing Ms Waitere's partner opening the emergency exit door on two occasions when there was no emergency. b. Signs were clearly posted on the emergency exit stating there is a $500 cost for non-emergency use. c. The building manager provided the CCTV footage and levied the costs for the emergency release breaches. d. As the tenant, Ms Waitere is responsible for damages and rule breaches caused by her partner in the premises. e. Mr Nassiri argues that regardless of the specifics of how the Body Corporate instituted the rule, the evidence shows Ms Waitere's partner breached a posted emergency exit policy.
Mr Nassiri's position is that with CCTV proof and posted warnings, Ms Waitere should pay the cost for her partner activating the emergency exit without an emergency. Ms Waitere’s submissions
Ms Waitere did not explicitly state why she believed she was not liable for her partner activating the emergency exit without an emergency. a. She argued that the building manager should have trespassed her partner after the first incident of opening the emergency exit. She believed the building manager did not take sufficient action to prevent repeat breaches. b. She highlighted that when the building first changed procedures to lock down stairwell access, the building manager did not properly communicate safety information or consequences to tenants. This raises the question of proper notification of emergency exit rules and their associated costs. c. She implied that as the emergency exit doors lacked signs and consequences when she moved in, she should not suddenly be penalised for her partner's actions related to those doors.
While not explicitly stated, there is a basis to infer from Ms Waitere’s submissions that she was not properly informed of the cost of the emergency doors when such costs were imposed. My view
I formed the view that Ms Waitere was not liable for the $1,000 cost because: a. There was no evidence that Body Corporate rules say activating the emergency exit would incur a $500 building manager attendance cost. b. The process for the Body Corporate Committee to make a rule change and properly notify residents was not followed. See “Special Rules for Common Property” in the Notice of Change Body Corporate Operational Rules attached to the tenancy agreement. c. The building manager indicated that the chairman had "discretion" to impose the cost, but a proper process needs to be followed to change the rules. Whether the Committee will give the chairman such wide discretion under the Body Corporate Operational Rules is a matter for the Committee. d. There was no evidence before me the Body Corporate Committee changed its rules and formally notified the tenants of a new $500 cost through the correct process.
There was no legal basis to find Ms Waitere liable for her partner activating the emergency exit button on 6 October 2023 at 3 p.m. and 7.12 p.m.
Accordingly, Mr Nassiri’s claim under this heading is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited - Ellerslie As Agent For Luke Luk has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4808398 — net $2,032.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears for one week	$680.00	Rent arrears for one week
Lock replacement	$263.00	Lock replacement
Repairs: Lower roller door	$862.50	Repairs: Lower roller door
Front door damage inspection	$207.00	Front door damage inspection
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,032.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,032.94

Claims and awards for application 4808398 — net $2,032.94 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears for one week

Amount: $680.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears for one week

Lock replacement

Amount: $263.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock replacement

Repairs: Lower roller door

Amount: $862.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Lower roller door

Front door damage inspection

Amount: $207.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Front door damage inspection

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

Yvonne Tusha Waitere and Sebastian Waitere to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited - Ellerslie As Agent For Luke Luk $2,032.94 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The hearing was held on 23 April 2024.
Mr Nassiri attended the hearing as the landlord's agent.
Ms Waitere attended the hearing as the tenant.
In the hearing, Mr Nassiri called the following witnesses: a. Mr Misiloi – the building manager. b. Mr Waugh – an inspector from Cornerstone Security.
The dispute first went before Adjudicator Mr Steens on 1 March 2024. Mr Nassiri made an application to terminate the tenancy. Adjudicator Mr Steens heard submissions from both parties and decided to terminate the tenancy.
The issue of the vacated tenancy was supposed to go back to Adjudicator Mr Steens for a hearing. However, since Adjudicator Mr Steens does not regularly sit in Auckland, I was assigned the matter for determination.
The hearing before me today is that the landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The Tribunal terminated the tenancy on 1 March 2024 at 5 p.m. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Ms Waitere’s submissions
However, Ms Waitere complained that if Mr Nassiri had included the $680 (one- week rent), she would not have owed $680. Ms Waitere submitted: a. When the landlord evicted her per the Tribunal Order of 1 March 2024, she went to Work and Income to get them to pay her rent directly to the landlord. However, Work and Income cancelled that payment when she was evicted, so the landlord did not receive the $680. b. After she was evicted, her accommodation supplement and temporary assistance from Work and Income were cut, and she had to use emergency housing. This left her with only $160 per week, not enough to pay the $680. c. She said if the landlord had not evicted her without notice, she would have ensured Work and Income paid the $680 before she was evicted.
In summary, Ms Waitere submitted that due to her sudden eviction and loss of income support, she was unable to pay the $680 rent that was owed. She blamed the eviction and loss of benefits for leaving her unable to pay. Mr Nassiri’s submissions
In reply, Mr Nassiri said: a. The $680 represents one week of unpaid rent from Ms Waitere's tenancy. b. Ms Waitere was given notice about her rent arrears over a 90-day period through 3 notices stating that failure to pay could lead to a Tribunal hearing. c. Ms Waitere was able to get Work and Income to pay most of her back rent using her benefits, but there remained a shortfall of $680 for the last unpaid week from 10 to 16 February 2024.
Mr Nassiri's position is that Ms Waitere still owes $680 in unpaid rent despite Work and Income paying most of the other back rent. Ms Waitere had sufficient notice to pay it. Conclusion
I do not accept Ms. Waitere's submissions because paying rent is one of her responsibilities under Section 40(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 ("RTA"). The RTA does not have any provision that excuses Ms. Waitere from paying one week's rent arrears just because she receives rental assistance from Work and Income.
Mr Nassiri provided a rent summary to prove the unpaid rent.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that Ms Waitere is liable for one week's rent arrears of $680.

Is Ms Waitere responsible for replacing the lock?

Ms Waitere did not dispute she needed to have the lock replaced for safety reasons. She said: a. On 13 February 2024, she called Mr Nassiri, believing her ex-partner, who was in jail, had arranged for people to break into her car and steal her keys. b. She was worried about her safety if those people used the keys to access her apartment, where she could be harmed. c. She asked Mr Nassiri to send a locksmith to change the locks to the apartment for her and the safety of the building's residents. d. Mr Nassiri agreed to arrange the lock change but told Ms Waitere she would have to pay since it was not the landlord's responsibility. e. Ms Waitere accepted the amount of $263 claimed.
The amount claimed is ordered by consent.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Lower roller door, and b. Front door. Garage Roller door – Was the damage intentional or careless?
This roller door is for the car park. How was the garage roller door damaged on 21 September 2023? I watched the CCTV footage in the hearing. I summarise what I saw as follows: a. Ms Waitere went to retrieve her personal belongings from her car parked in the garage. b. The garage door started closing as she returned to her partner outside. c. Her partner stood underneath the roller door and appeared to expect the sensor to detect him and reopen the door or to temporarily stop it to allow Ms Waitere to exit the garage without the need to “reopen” it. d. The roller door gently landed on her partner's back and continued closing. Then, it appeared a safety mechanism was triggered, causing the roller door to return to the opening position. e. Ms Waitere then exited the garage, but the roller door could no longer roll down and close the garage. f. Ms Waitere then tried the switch, but it did not work because the roller door was damaged.
Ms Waitere argues that her partner was standing under the malfunctioning door when the sensor failed to detect him and reopen. This caused the door to connect his back and get jammed as it tried to roll back up, damaging the door. She argues the damage was due to sensor error rather than her partner intentionally damaging the door.
Ms Waitere also argues the garage is not a common area. My view
I do not accept Ms Waitere's argument that the roller door malfunctioned because the sensor failed to detect her partner and reopen. It was her partner's responsibility to avoid standing underneath the roller door. By doing so, he put himself in harm's way.
While it is unfortunate that Ms Waitere's partner chose to stand underneath the roller door, he did not appear to have applied any force to it. Mr Nassiri did not dispute that Ms Waitere's partner was careless when he caused the roller door to jam.
I do not accept Ms Waitere's argument that the garage is not a common area. A common area is an area that residents can access. In the case of a garage, only residents with controllers can access it. In Ms Waitere’s case, she said: “Because all the other tenants of that building, they use the other car park inside the building. I'm the only one from that whole building that used that particular car park as the owner of my apartment,”
However, there are many cars in the garage, and Ms Waitere is one of the users of the garage. Therefore, the garage is a common area, and it is not exclusively for the benefit of Ms Waitere.
Mr Nassiri provided me with the Body Corporate Insurance Policy, which states that the excess for common area damage is $2,500. Since claiming against the policy would be more expensive, I find Ms Waitere is liable for the repair cost of $862.50.
I am satisfied that Ms Waitere is responsible for paying the repair cost. The amount ordered is proven.

Front door damage - Was the damage intentional or careless?

Mr Nassiri’s submissions

Mr Nassiri alleged Ms Waitere’s partner damaged the front door by kicking it. Mr Nassiri gave the following reasons why Ms Waitere should be liable for the front door damage. a. CCTV footage shows Ms Waitere's partner kicking the front door to the building three times on 16 August 2023. Ms Waitere accepts that her partner kicked the front door, and her partner was in the premises with her permission. b. The building manager, Mr Misiloi, emailed Mr Nassiri about Ms Waitere’s partner's actions and the potential damage caused. c. The Body Corporate requested an inspection of the door by Cornerstone Security on 29 August 2023 to assess the damage. d. The inspection found that the door was not closing and locking properly because it had been knocked out of alignment. Repairs would be needed. e. Cornerstone Security's inspection and quote for repairs were linked to Ms Waitere’s partner's actions of kicking the door in the CCTV footage. f. As a tenant, Ms Waitere is responsible for damages caused by her partner.
Mr Nassiri argues the evidence shows the front door damage was caused by Ms Waitere's partner kicking it three times, making her liable for inspection costs and repair bills as the tenant. Mr Waugh’s evidence
Mr Waugh from Cornerstone Security gave the following expert evidence about how the front door was damaged: a. Cornerstone Security was called out because the front door was not closing properly. b. When he inspected it, he found that the door was out of alignment and that the top magnetic lock would not engage to keep the door closed. c. He said this indicated that something had knocked the door out of alignment, as the doors normally operate reliably when he services the building. d. His assessment of the damage was that an external force had knocked the door out of alignment, and repairs were needed to realign and adjust the door and hinges. e. He confirmed that kicking the bottom half of the door is the worst thing a person can do, as it acts as a lever and twists the door, knocking it out of alignment with the top lock.
Mr Waugh's professional assessment was that the damage was consistent with the door being kicked forcefully at the bottom half, throwing it out of alignment so it could not close and lock properly anymore. Ms Waitere’s submissions
Ms Witere did not dispute that her partner kicked the front door, but she submitted why she said she was not liable for the inspection or repair costs. a. She argued that after her partner kicked the door, she was still able to open it with her key fob, indicating the door was still functional. b. She said it was not until later that someone else (an unnamed tenant) broke the glass panel on the lower part of the front door. c. She argued that Mr Waugh cannot definitively state her partner caused alignment/closure issues since the glass broke afterwards and may have impacted functioning. d. She suggested the $207 charge is just for inspecting suspected damage, but no repairs have been executed yet. e. She reiterated that her partner has agreed to pay for any damages he caused, but she disputes that he damaged the functioning of the door.
Ms Waitere does not believe the evidence can directly link the need for repairs to her partner's actions alone, and the inspection charge alone does not prove he damaged the door's functioning. Mr Misiloi’s evidence
In response to Ms Waitere’s assertion that the front door did not have a functional issue until an unnamed tenant broke the glass panel on the lower part of the front door, Mr Nassiri called the building manager, Mr Misiloi, to give evidence why Ms Waitere was not correct in her submissions.
Mr Misiloi (the building manager) gave the following reasons why Ms Waitere should be liable for the damage to the front door: a. He stated there were two separate incidents: i. Ms Waitere's partner kicked the door on 16 August 2023, which caused the door to become loose and out of alignment. ii. Another tenant broke the glass panel of the front door on 14 October 2023. b. He said the kicked door had to be inspected for damage, which is what the $207 charge relates to. This occurred before the glass-breaking incident. c. He reiterated that Ms Waitere's partner's initial kick damaged the door's structure and alignment, preventing it from closing properly. The later glass damage was unrelated.
Mr Misiloi attributes the damage to the door's alignment and ability to close/lock to Ms Waitere's partner's kicks. He argues that the later glass damage by someone else did not impact the underlying structural damage already done, which Ms Waitere is still liable for as the apartment's tenant because her partner was in the premises with Ms Witere’s permission.
Taking into account the submissions by both parties and the evidence from two witnesses, I am satisfied that Ms Waitere’s partner intentionally damaged the front door’s structure and alignment, preventing it from closing properly.
Ms Waitere is, therefore, liable for the inspection cost of $207.
Can Mr Nassiri prove that Ms Waitere is liable for the front door's repair cost, considering the length of time that has passed and the number of people who have used it? If Mr Nassiri decides to make another application before the Tribunal, this will be a live issue. I will leave it to Mr Nassiri to obtain instructions from his client regarding this matter. Emergency exit attendance cost
Mr Nassiri is seeking compensation from Ms Waitere because her partner activated the emergency exit button on 6 October 2023 at 3 p.m. and 7.12 p.m. Activating the emergency exit button breaches the Body Corporate rules. Each breach attracts a $500 cost for the building manager’s time.
I asked Mr Nassiri in the hearing the Body Corporate Operational Rules attached to the tenancy agreement did not appear to have a rule regarding activating the emergency exit button or the cost.
Mr. Nassiri called the building manager, Mr Misiloi, to provide evidence about how the rule was established. Mr Misiloi’s evidence
According to Mr Misiloi's evidence, the reasons the Body Corporate started charging people for opening the emergency exit were: a. They had recently upgraded the building's access control systems and security, requiring card access for the stairwells. b. There were ongoing issues with the emergency release being constantly activated, often at unreasonable hours. This was causing complaints from residents. c. A review of CCTV footage revealed resident Ms Waitere's partner repeatedly activated the emergency release when there was no emergency. d. Despite multiple verbal warnings to stop, the breaches continued. e. The Body Corporate chairman then decided that in the future, unit owners would be charged $500 when their tenants or visitors activated the emergency exit without an emergency. f. This charge was put in place to increase security, address resident complaints, and deter future non-emergency activations compromising building safety. Proper signage was also posted on the exit.
Mr Misiloi’s evidence is that the cost was instituted to address specific ongoing misuse of the emergency release by Ms Waitere's partner after other efforts failed to correct the behaviour. Mr Nassiri’s submissions
Mr Nassiri gave the following reasons why he believed Ms Waitere should be liable for the emergency exit release cost of $1,000. a. There is CCTV footage showing Ms Waitere's partner opening the emergency exit door on two occasions when there was no emergency. b. Signs were clearly posted on the emergency exit stating there is a $500 cost for non-emergency use. c. The building manager provided the CCTV footage and levied the costs for the emergency release breaches. d. As the tenant, Ms Waitere is responsible for damages and rule breaches caused by her partner in the premises. e. Mr Nassiri argues that regardless of the specifics of how the Body Corporate instituted the rule, the evidence shows Ms Waitere's partner breached a posted emergency exit policy.
Mr Nassiri's position is that with CCTV proof and posted warnings, Ms Waitere should pay the cost for her partner activating the emergency exit without an emergency. Ms Waitere’s submissions
Ms Waitere did not explicitly state why she believed she was not liable for her partner activating the emergency exit without an emergency. a. She argued that the building manager should have trespassed her partner after the first incident of opening the emergency exit. She believed the building manager did not take sufficient action to prevent repeat breaches. b. She highlighted that when the building first changed procedures to lock down stairwell access, the building manager did not properly communicate safety information or consequences to tenants. This raises the question of proper notification of emergency exit rules and their associated costs. c. She implied that as the emergency exit doors lacked signs and consequences when she moved in, she should not suddenly be penalised for her partner's actions related to those doors.
While not explicitly stated, there is a basis to infer from Ms Waitere’s submissions that she was not properly informed of the cost of the emergency doors when such costs were imposed. My view
I formed the view that Ms Waitere was not liable for the $1,000 cost because: a. There was no evidence that Body Corporate rules say activating the emergency exit would incur a $500 building manager attendance cost. b. The process for the Body Corporate Committee to make a rule change and properly notify residents was not followed. See “Special Rules for Common Property” in the Notice of Change Body Corporate Operational Rules attached to the tenancy agreement. c. The building manager indicated that the chairman had "discretion" to impose the cost, but a proper process needs to be followed to change the rules. Whether the Committee will give the chairman such wide discretion under the Body Corporate Operational Rules is a matter for the Committee. d. There was no evidence before me the Body Corporate Committee changed its rules and formally notified the tenants of a new $500 cost through the correct process.
There was no legal basis to find Ms Waitere liable for her partner activating the emergency exit button on 6 October 2023 at 3 p.m. and 7.12 p.m.
Accordingly, Mr Nassiri’s claim under this heading is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited - Ellerslie As Agent For Luke Luk has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808398 — Property damage at Unit/Flat GG, 16 Liverpool Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808398 — Property damage at Unit/Flat GG, 16 Liverpool Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is Ms Waitere responsible for replacing the lock?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Front door damage - Was the damage intentional or careless?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is Ms Waitere responsible for replacing the lock?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Front door damage - Was the damage intentional or careless?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions