How much money was awarded in case 4997229?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4997229?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4997229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10880986-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4997229?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4997229?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4997229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10880986-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat G01, 430 Queen Street, Auckland CBD, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4997229 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4997229?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited Miracle Luli at Unit/Flat G01, 430 Queen

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4997229 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

The tenancy of Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited Miracle Luli at Unit/Flat G01, 430 Queen Street, Auckland CBD, Auckland 110 is terminated, and possession is granted to The Rent House Limited As Agent For Yongchao Peng, at 11:59pm Thursday 3 October 2024.

Kahui Tu Kaha Limited Miracle Luli must pay The Rent House Limited As Agent For Yongchao Peng $27.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by remote teleconference.

The tenant is a social housing provider who has a separate tenancy agreement with a sub-tenant. The landlord claims that the sub-tenant has engaged in anti- social behaviour and has threatened to assault an occupier of the building.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for a threat of assault.

The relevant part of section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states: 55 Termination on non-payment of rent, damage, or assault a. Subject to subsection (2), on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— (c) the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the... (iv)any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part: (v)any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part....

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The landlord seeks termination based on threats to neighbouring tenants and other building occupiers. The landlord also seeks exemplary damages based on the behaviour of the sub-tenant. They say that the Body Corporate has had to arrange for a security guard to deal with the on-going behaviour which has come at significant cost to the Body Corporate.

The landlord has provided a schedule outlining the problems with the sub- tenant of this apartment. A 14-day notice was also served on the tenant on 6 September 2024. The landlord confirms that there has been no improvement in response to the 14-day notice.

On 3 September 2024 the tenant was verbally abusive towards a neighbour.

The landlord provided a signed statement dated 13 September 2024 from the building cleaner outlining threats and verbal abuse directed towards her. On one occasion the cleaner had to seek shelter in the building convenience store as she was concerned for her safety.

I was also provided with a number of emails from the building manager outlining the anti-social behaviour and verbal threats to building occupiers coupled with the considerable disruption the sub-tenant has caused.

In an email dated 4 September 2024 the building convenience store worker outlined a situation where the cleaner came into his shop looking very stressed. She told him that the sub-tenant was drunk and yelling very loudly in the courtyard. The yelling continued so the worker, who also resides in the same building, went to see what the issue was. He states that the sub-tenant started verbally abusing him. He says that as he headed back to his office the sub- tenant swore at him and threatened to assault him and ‘knock him out’. He also started swearing at the other tenants as they were leaving the building.

The tenant says that they have issued their own breach notice to the sub-tenant on 4 August 2024 and on 5 September 2024 in respect of this behaviour.

This is an apartment building complex; the safety of all occupants must be paramount.

The landlord provided a schedule outlining events between 8 September 2024 and 21 September 2024 in respect of anti-social behaviour and verbal abuse to building occupiers.

Having carefully considered the evidence before me in support of the landlord’s application I am satisfied that the tenant has breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The claim is proven. Breach of quiet enjoyment:

The Rent House Limited As Agent For Yongchao Peng claims the tenant has disturbed their neighbours.

A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

The tenant has an agreement with the sub-tenant. Exemplary damages are sought by the landlord in respect of this. The tenant opposes this as being unreasonable.

I am not satisfied that exemplary damages are appropriate in this case. Although the tenant is ultimately responsible for the actions of their sub-tenant I do not accept that the tenant has acted unlawfully with the intention of doing so. As also recorded above the tenant issued their own breach notice to the sub- tenant on 4 August 2024 and on 5 September 2024 in respect of this behaviour. While it can be argued that the tenant perhaps should have taken more decisive action earlier against the sub-tenant I do not accept that they have acted unlawfully with the required intention.

Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Because The Rent House Limited As Agent For Yongchao Peng has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4997229 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Kahui Tu Kaha Limited Miracle Luli must pay The Rent House Limited As Agent For Yongchao Peng $27.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by remote teleconference.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for a threat of assault.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

On 3 September 2024 the tenant was verbally abusive towards a neighbour.

The tenant says that they have issued their own breach notice to the sub-tenant on 4 August 2024 and on 5 September 2024 in respect of this behaviour.

This is an apartment building complex; the safety of all occupants must be paramount.

The landlord provided a schedule outlining events between 8 September 2024 and 21 September 2024 in respect of anti-social behaviour and verbal abuse to building occupiers.

Having carefully considered the evidence before me in support of the landlord’s application I am satisfied that the tenant has breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The claim is proven. Breach of quiet enjoyment:

The Rent House Limited As Agent For Yongchao Peng claims the tenant has disturbed their neighbours.

The tenant has an agreement with the sub-tenant. Exemplary damages are sought by the landlord in respect of this. The tenant opposes this as being unreasonable.

Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Because The Rent House Limited As Agent For Yongchao Peng has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4997229 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat G01, 430 Queen Street, Auckland CBD, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4997229 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat G01, 430 Queen Street, Auckland CBD, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions