What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5076188?

The tribunal order states: Thomas Michael van Wijk must pay One Place Limited as agent for Pascal and

How much money was awarded in case 5076188?

Body Corp Manager Charges For 1 X Br…: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5076188?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5076188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11190648-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5076188?

The tribunal order states: Thomas Michael van Wijk must pay One Place Limited as agent for Pascal and

How much money was awarded in case 5076188?

Body Corp Manager Charges For 1 X Br…: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5076188?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5076188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11190648-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 512, 22 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5076188 — Unit Titles

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5076188. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Body Corp Manager charges for 1 x breach of BC rules	$414.00		Body Corp Manager charges for 1 x breach of BC rules
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Thomas Michael van Wijk must pay One Place Limited as agent for Pascal and Christine Valentin $441.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The claim for termination is dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Body Corp Manager charges for 1 x breach of BC rules$414.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$441.00

Reasons

Tom Castro attended the hearing for the landlords’ agent.
The tenant did not attend. The tenant has not contacted the Tribunal. The hearing continued in his absence.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for: an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission; and compensation for the cost of body corporate charges for the tenant’s alleged body corporate rule breaches.

Termination for antisocial behaviour?

Under s 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the Tribunal must terminate tenancies for antisocial behaviour where the prescriptive terms of the section are met.
Section 55A does not apply to this case because it only applies to periodic tenancies and this tenancy is a fixed-term tenancy, and the prescribed terms of the section have not been followed here.
The application for termination is dismissed.

Should the Tribunal order compensation for costs arising from breach of the rules?

The Body Corporate invoiced the tenants $414.00 on three occasions for the tenant allegedly breaching the body corporate rules.
The relevant rule is rule 18 of the body corporate rules which provides:
Noise, behaviour and conduct a. Behaviour An Owner of a unit shall not make or permit any noise or carry out or permit any conduct or behaviour, in any unit or on the common property, which is likely to interfere with the use and enjoyment of the unit title development by other Owners.
Mr Castro relies on the Body Corporate Manager, Boutique Body Corporate’s characterisation of the tenant’s conduct on three dates: 11 September, 12 November, and 16 November 2024.
The first alleged breach involved screaming and yelling from the tenant’s unit. The tenant has reimbursed the landlord’s $414.00 charge for this matter already.
The second alleged breach on 12 November involved the tenant allegedly arguing with hotel reception staff. Boutique Body Corporate’s notice to the tenant about the incident states: It has come to the Body Corporate’s attention that there has been a breach of the Body Corporate Operational Rules regarding the occupant at Unit 512. On Tuesday 12th November 2024, approximately 3:30pm your tenant Thomas Michael Van Wijk who resides in unit 512 approached our hotel reception on 35 Hobson asking our reception for free WIFI. The Duty manager offered other alternatives that he may pay for to use Wi-Fi, but Thomas wasn’t happy with paying for Wi-Fi and had since left and returned to the Tower reception on 22 Nelson Street. Whilst Thomas was the Tower reception, he went on to argue loudly with staff as to why he is not given free access to the Wi-Fi.
I am not satisfied that “arguing loudly with staff” amounts to conduct which was “likely to interfere with the use and enjoyment of the unit title development by other Owners”.
It has not been shown that there were any other owners in the vicinity at the time of the incident. Loudly arguing may or may not amount to a relevant interference depending on all of circumstances. The landlord has the onus of proving the tenant breached the rules on the balance of probabilities and it has not satisfied the onus. This claim is dismissed.
The third claim for an incident on 16 November 2024 is described in Boutique Body Corporate’s notice to the tenant as follows: On Saturday the 16th of November 2024 at approximately 1500hours your tenant who resides in 512 was arguing very loudly and screaming at another tenant about some personal issues on social media. Other residents and staff witnessed this altercation and have then since askes [sic] Thomas to walk away to escalate the situation. This is again an anti-social behaviour breach notice in accordance with the noise and behaviour conduct of the body corporate regulation.
I am satisfied that “arguing very loudly and screaming” in the vicinity of other residents is a breach of rule 18 because it was “likely to interfere with the use and enjoyment of the unit title development by other Owners”.
The $414.00 fee arises from Boutique’s time attendances at $165.00 per hour plus GST. It is a significant amount, but I note Boutique’s Notice is tailored and would have taken more than minimal time to complete. Boutique would have had other attendances as well.
I do not regard Boutique’s charge as a penalty because it is based on time spent (albeit the charge is in the nature of a set fee) and is charged to the unit owner.
I have considered the possibility that rule 18 is ultra vires. The rule is unlikely to be made ultra vires because it deals with the sort of matters that the original default rules would have dealt with. Accordingly, rule 18 is intra vires under subsections 106(2) and (4) of the Unit Titles Act 2010.
I find the alleged breach of rule 18 on 16 November 2024, proved.
The tenant is therefore required to reimburse the landlord for its cost incurred for the tenant’s breach. Filing fee
The tenant must reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. Other
The Tribunal has dismissed the application for termination on this occasion.
However, the Tribunal urges the tenant to be mindful of the other occupants’ reasonable peace in the coming months.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5076188. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Body Corp Manager charges for 1 x breach of BC rules	$414.00		Body Corp Manager charges for 1 x breach of BC rules
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Thomas Michael van Wijk must pay One Place Limited as agent for Pascal and Christine Valentin $441.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The claim for termination is dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Body Corp Manager charges for 1 x breach of BC rules$414.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$441.00

Reasons

Tom Castro attended the hearing for the landlords’ agent.
The tenant did not attend. The tenant has not contacted the Tribunal. The hearing continued in his absence.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for: an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission; and compensation for the cost of body corporate charges for the tenant’s alleged body corporate rule breaches.

Termination for antisocial behaviour?

Under s 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the Tribunal must terminate tenancies for antisocial behaviour where the prescriptive terms of the section are met.
Section 55A does not apply to this case because it only applies to periodic tenancies and this tenancy is a fixed-term tenancy, and the prescribed terms of the section have not been followed here.
The application for termination is dismissed.

Should the Tribunal order compensation for costs arising from breach of the rules?

The Body Corporate invoiced the tenants $414.00 on three occasions for the tenant allegedly breaching the body corporate rules.
The relevant rule is rule 18 of the body corporate rules which provides:
Noise, behaviour and conduct a. Behaviour An Owner of a unit shall not make or permit any noise or carry out or permit any conduct or behaviour, in any unit or on the common property, which is likely to interfere with the use and enjoyment of the unit title development by other Owners.
Mr Castro relies on the Body Corporate Manager, Boutique Body Corporate’s characterisation of the tenant’s conduct on three dates: 11 September, 12 November, and 16 November 2024.
The first alleged breach involved screaming and yelling from the tenant’s unit. The tenant has reimbursed the landlord’s $414.00 charge for this matter already.
The second alleged breach on 12 November involved the tenant allegedly arguing with hotel reception staff. Boutique Body Corporate’s notice to the tenant about the incident states: It has come to the Body Corporate’s attention that there has been a breach of the Body Corporate Operational Rules regarding the occupant at Unit 512. On Tuesday 12th November 2024, approximately 3:30pm your tenant Thomas Michael Van Wijk who resides in unit 512 approached our hotel reception on 35 Hobson asking our reception for free WIFI. The Duty manager offered other alternatives that he may pay for to use Wi-Fi, but Thomas wasn’t happy with paying for Wi-Fi and had since left and returned to the Tower reception on 22 Nelson Street. Whilst Thomas was the Tower reception, he went on to argue loudly with staff as to why he is not given free access to the Wi-Fi.
I am not satisfied that “arguing loudly with staff” amounts to conduct which was “likely to interfere with the use and enjoyment of the unit title development by other Owners”.
It has not been shown that there were any other owners in the vicinity at the time of the incident. Loudly arguing may or may not amount to a relevant interference depending on all of circumstances. The landlord has the onus of proving the tenant breached the rules on the balance of probabilities and it has not satisfied the onus. This claim is dismissed.
The third claim for an incident on 16 November 2024 is described in Boutique Body Corporate’s notice to the tenant as follows: On Saturday the 16th of November 2024 at approximately 1500hours your tenant who resides in 512 was arguing very loudly and screaming at another tenant about some personal issues on social media. Other residents and staff witnessed this altercation and have then since askes [sic] Thomas to walk away to escalate the situation. This is again an anti-social behaviour breach notice in accordance with the noise and behaviour conduct of the body corporate regulation.
I am satisfied that “arguing very loudly and screaming” in the vicinity of other residents is a breach of rule 18 because it was “likely to interfere with the use and enjoyment of the unit title development by other Owners”.
The $414.00 fee arises from Boutique’s time attendances at $165.00 per hour plus GST. It is a significant amount, but I note Boutique’s Notice is tailored and would have taken more than minimal time to complete. Boutique would have had other attendances as well.
I do not regard Boutique’s charge as a penalty because it is based on time spent (albeit the charge is in the nature of a set fee) and is charged to the unit owner.
I have considered the possibility that rule 18 is ultra vires. The rule is unlikely to be made ultra vires because it deals with the sort of matters that the original default rules would have dealt with. Accordingly, rule 18 is intra vires under subsections 106(2) and (4) of the Unit Titles Act 2010.
I find the alleged breach of rule 18 on 16 November 2024, proved.
The tenant is therefore required to reimburse the landlord for its cost incurred for the tenant’s breach. Filing fee
The tenant must reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. Other
The Tribunal has dismissed the application for termination on this occasion.
However, the Tribunal urges the tenant to be mindful of the other occupants’ reasonable peace in the coming months.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5076188 — Unit Titles at Unit 512, 22 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5076188 — Unit Titles at Unit 512, 22 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Termination for antisocial behaviour?

Should the Tribunal order compensation for costs arising from breach of the rules?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Termination for antisocial behaviour?

Should the Tribunal order compensation for costs arising from breach of the rules?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions