How much money was awarded in case 4866540?

Breach Of Body Corporate Rules - Sec…: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $227.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,985.72 awarded to landlord; Security Access Charges X 5: $143.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4866540?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4866540?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10926820-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4866540?

Breach Of Body Corporate Rules - Sec…: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $227.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,985.72 awarded to landlord; Security Access Charges X 5: $143.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4866540?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4866540?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10926820-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 48, 139 Quay Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4866540 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4866540?

The tribunal order states: Bonnie Isabela Park must pay Uno Property Management Limited As Agent For

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4866540 — net $1,527.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5.5.2024	$2,985.72	Rent arrears to 5.5.2024
Lock/key replacement: 2 x swipe card replacements	$100.00	Lock/key replacement: 2 x swipe card replacements
Lock/key replacement: replace apartment lock	$227.70	Lock/key replacement: replace apartment lock
Security access charges x 5	$143.75	Security access charges x 5
Breach of Body Corporate Rules - security charge for incidents	$250.00	Breach of Body Corporate Rules - security charge for incidents
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,527.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,527.61

Bonnie Isabela Park must pay Uno Property Management Limited As Agent For Lucas & Maggie Investment Limited $1,527.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (5339127-008) to Uno Property Management Limited As Agent For Lucas & Maggie Investment Limited immediately.

Reasons

Mr Wong attended the teleconference hearing on behalf of the landlord. The phone numbers for the tenant, Ms Park, the last three digits being 747 and 538 respectively, were called twice each. All calls went to voicemail. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.

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 tenancy ended on 5 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 5 May 2024, which is $2,985.72.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Lost swipe cards and lock replacement

The landlord said the tenant did not return the two swipe cards provided to her at the start of the tenancy, as she said she had lost them. The landlord arranged for the two swipe cards to be replaced at a cost of $100.00 and provided confirmation from the building management that swipe cards cost $50.00 each to replace and a receipt for payment of $100.00 to the building management. The landlord explained that, due to the swipe cards being lost, the lock to the apartment had to be replaced for security, which cost $227.70. An invoice was provided from a locksmith confirming this. The Tenancy Agreement provides that the tenant is to pay any locksmith fees if their swipe cards are lost. I find the cost of replacing the swipe cards and replacing the lock reasonable in the circumstances and so award the landlord a total of $327.70 to replace the two swipe cards and replace the lock at the end of the tenancy. Building access charges

Mr Wong said that the tenant developed a habit of asking security to let her visitors into the building, rather than going to the building’s entrance to let them in herself. He clarified that the building’s management contacted him to let him know this was becoming excessive and that they would have to charge for any further access calls to security to let the tenant’s visitors into the building. The landlord said he told the tenant to stop doing this and that there would be charges for any further calls to security for access for her visitors, which the landlord would pass along to the tenant. Shortly after that, the tenant persisted in requesting security to give access to her visitors, incurring 5 charges of $25.00 per visit from 28 March 2024 to 4 April 2024. The landlord claimed $143.74 for these charges and provided an invoice from the building’s management in this amount for these services. Mr Wong relied on clause 12 of the Tenancy Agreement, which provides for the tenant to pay any call out charges if the tenant does not adhere to prior arrangements for entry to the building. In the circumstances and given the evidence of the tenant being notified of these potential charges and yet persisting in requesting security to provide access to her visitors, I find the charge by the landlord to the tenant of $143.75 for the 5 requests to security on different dates by the tenant to provide access to her visitors reasonable and award this to the landlord. Security incidents charges

The landlord claimed $999.99 for the building security to attend incidents of anti-social behaviour by the tenant or her visitors. Mr Wong provided an invoice for $999.99 from the building security for attending what they said was 3 incidents over a period from 11:13pm on 28 March 2024 to around 12:41am on 29 March 2024. Mr Wong agreed that these incidents, which involved the tenant and her partner, essentially took place over a short period overnight on 28/29 March 2024. Two of the incidents, each charged separately @ $217.39, took place apparently within 2 minutes of each other. The third incident the same night incurred a charge of $434.78. The landlord said he was told by the building security that these were classed as three different incidents and that is why they incurred separate charges. However, on a reading of the security report of that night and the incidents, there is a common thread between the incidents listed in the report of security having to deal with a domestic incident between the tenant and her partner outside the building and the behaviour of the tenant’s partner, and then with security dealing with the police who attended the building when called by security. Whilst I find it reasonable that the tenant is accountable for a security charge for that time, I do not find it reasonable that there are three different charges made for what is, in essence, ongoing dealings between security and the tenant, her partner and the police over around 1.5 hours on one evening.

An excerpt of the Body Corporate Rules that are relevant to the claim for the charges by the building’s security, were provided by the landlord. The landlord said the full Body Corporate Rules had been provided to the tenant at the start of the tenancy. The Tenancy Agreement provides that tenants are not to breach any such Body Corporate Rules. The excerpt from the Body Corporate Rules provided by the landlord said that, if security observe inappropriate behaviour by a resident, security will contact the owner/property manager of the offending apartment. If there is a failure to comply with the rules and a second report is made and security has to attend the second time, a call out fee of $250.00 would be applied. If they still do not comply, then police would be notified.

The Body Corporate Rules as outlined above and provided by the landlord, only allow for a call out fee of $250.00. Whilst the landlord provided an email from the building management that there would be an increasing set of charges made by security for escalating call outs with a failure to comply with earlier call outs, there was insufficient evidence provided to confirm that this email information had been provided to the tenant. Given the evidence that this behaviour took place over around 1.5 hours on one evening, and given the evidence of the Body Corporate rules applicable to this situation, I find that a charge of $250.00 is more reasonable than $999.99 claimed, for a charge for a security call out for the anti-social behaviour of the tenant’s partner on the evening of 28/29 March 2024, and award this to the landlord.

The amounts ordered are proved. Refund of the bond

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (5339127-008) to Uno Property Management Limited As Agent For Lucas & Maggie Investment Limited immediately. Filing fee

Because Uno Property Management Limited As Agent For Lucas & Maggie Investment Limited has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4866540 — net $1,527.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5.5.2024	$2,985.72	Rent arrears to 5.5.2024
Lock/key replacement: 2 x swipe card replacements	$100.00	Lock/key replacement: 2 x swipe card replacements
Lock/key replacement: replace apartment lock	$227.70	Lock/key replacement: replace apartment lock
Security access charges x 5	$143.75	Security access charges x 5
Breach of Body Corporate Rules - security charge for incidents	$250.00	Breach of Body Corporate Rules - security charge for incidents
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,527.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,527.61

Bonnie Isabela Park must pay Uno Property Management Limited As Agent For Lucas & Maggie Investment Limited $1,527.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (5339127-008) to Uno Property Management Limited As Agent For Lucas & Maggie Investment Limited immediately.

Reasons

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 tenancy ended on 5 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 5 May 2024, which is $2,985.72.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The amounts ordered are proved. Refund of the bond

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (5339127-008) to Uno Property Management Limited As Agent For Lucas & Maggie Investment Limited immediately. Filing fee

Because Uno Property Management Limited As Agent For Lucas & Maggie Investment Limited has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4866540 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 48, 139 Quay Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4866540 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 48, 139 Quay Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions