What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5089528?

The tribunal order states: Bellamarie Hemopo and Tuaini-Kore Wang must pay Kathryn (Kat) Ruth Teirney

How much money was awarded in case 5089528?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Cost Of Security Guards: $11,811.94 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5089528?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5089528?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11647087-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5089528?

The tribunal order states: Bellamarie Hemopo and Tuaini-Kore Wang must pay Kathryn (Kat) Ruth Teirney

How much money was awarded in case 5089528?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Cost Of Security Guards: $11,811.94 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5089528?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5089528?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11647087-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4I, 22-32 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5089528 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5089528 — net $12,126.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cost of security guards	$11,811.94	Cost of security guards
Cleaning	$287.50	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,126.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,126.44

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 24 December 2024. The other party was contacted but advised that she could not participate due to other commitments. I am satisfied that the tenant was aware of the hearing or ought to have been aware of the hearing and chose not to participate. The hearing proceeded in the tenants’ absence.

The landlord originally applied for termination of the tenancy due to anti-social behaviour and compensation. By the time of the hearing, the tenancy had already ended, and the landlord advised that they no longer sought termination but pursued claims for compensation in the amount of $287.50 for cleaning and $11,811.94 for the cost of security guards, arising from the tenant’s conduct and associated breaches of the tenancy agreement.

After hearing the landlord’s position, the Tribunal requested further information to determine the matter. The hearing was briefly adjourned to enable the landlord an opportunity to provide this information. Are the landlord’s claims for cleaning and security costs recoverable?

The premises are part of a unit title development governed by a Body Corporate. Following repeated complaints and serious concerns from other residents, the Body Corporate resolved to install full-time security presence at the building’s entrance due to the tenant’s ongoing conduct and the associated risk to the safety and wellbeing of occupants and visitors. The cost of security was ultimately charged to the landlord as the unit owner of Apartment 4I.

Evidence provided by the landlord, including photographic evidence, formal complaints from residents, and correspondence from the Body Corporate, demonstrated a persistent pattern of anti-social behaviour linked to the tenant and her associates. This included fights and shouting within the apartment, intoxicated individuals and homeless persons entering and sleeping in the common areas, an unmanned aggressive dog roaming the building, property damage, obstructions in shared corridors, and bodily waste in fire egress areas. Blood was found splattered in the building’s lift and stairwell following a physical altercation. These matters were raised with the tenant on multiple occasions and assurances were given that the conduct would cease. However, the behaviour persisted throughout the tenancy.

Tenants must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). This obligation is fundamental and applies not only to the tenant personally, but also to the conduct of any guests or associates permitted on the premises. The landlord’s uncontested evidence shows repeated and serious breaches of this duty. The tenant failed to control the behaviour of guests, allowed unsafe and unsanitary conditions to develop, and ignored prior warnings. The impact on neighbouring residents was substantial and ongoing.

The costs of cleaning ($287.50) were directly attributable to the blood and bodily waste left in common areas as a result of violent incidents linked to the tenancy. The claim is supported by an invoice and photographic evidence, and is reasonable in quantum.

The claim for $11,811.94 for security guard costs is more substantial, but the Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that these costs were a necessary and proportionate response to repeated, serious safety concerns directly attributable to the tenant’s occupancy. The costs were incurred by the Body Corporate and passed on to the landlord. The Body Corporate’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances, and it is appropriate that the landlord be entitled to recover these costs from the party whose conduct necessitated them. The Tribunal accepts this as recoverable consequential loss arising from the tenant’s breach of her obligations under the tenancy.

Accordingly, I find the landlord’s claims for $287.50 and $11,811.94 proved.

As the landlord is wholly successful in their application, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee of $20.44 under section 102(2) of the RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5089528 — net $12,126.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cost of security guards	$11,811.94	Cost of security guards
Cleaning	$287.50	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,126.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,126.44

Order

Bellamarie Hemopo and Tuaini-Kore Wang must pay Kathryn (Kat) Ruth Teirney $12,126.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 24 December 2024. The other party was contacted but advised that she could not participate due to other commitments. I am satisfied that the tenant was aware of the hearing or ought to have been aware of the hearing and chose not to participate. The hearing proceeded in the tenants’ absence.
The landlord originally applied for termination of the tenancy due to anti-social behaviour and compensation. By the time of the hearing, the tenancy had already ended, and the landlord advised that they no longer sought termination but pursued claims for compensation in the amount of $287.50 for cleaning and $11,811.94 for the cost of security guards, arising from the tenant’s conduct and associated breaches of the tenancy agreement.
After hearing the landlord’s position, the Tribunal requested further information to determine the matter. The hearing was briefly adjourned to enable the landlord an opportunity to provide this information. Are the landlord’s claims for cleaning and security costs recoverable?
The premises are part of a unit title development governed by a Body Corporate. Following repeated complaints and serious concerns from other residents, the Body Corporate resolved to install full-time security presence at the building’s entrance due to the tenant’s ongoing conduct and the associated risk to the safety and wellbeing of occupants and visitors. The cost of security was ultimately charged to the landlord as the unit owner of Apartment 4I.
Evidence provided by the landlord, including photographic evidence, formal complaints from residents, and correspondence from the Body Corporate, demonstrated a persistent pattern of anti-social behaviour linked to the tenant and her associates. This included fights and shouting within the apartment, intoxicated individuals and homeless persons entering and sleeping in the common areas, an unmanned aggressive dog roaming the building, property damage, obstructions in shared corridors, and bodily waste in fire egress areas. Blood was found splattered in the building’s lift and stairwell following a physical altercation. These matters were raised with the tenant on multiple occasions and assurances were given that the conduct would cease. However, the behaviour persisted throughout the tenancy.
Tenants must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). This obligation is fundamental and applies not only to the tenant personally, but also to the conduct of any guests or associates permitted on the premises. The landlord’s uncontested evidence shows repeated and serious breaches of this duty. The tenant failed to control the behaviour of guests, allowed unsafe and unsanitary conditions to develop, and ignored prior warnings. The impact on neighbouring residents was substantial and ongoing.
The costs of cleaning ($287.50) were directly attributable to the blood and bodily waste left in common areas as a result of violent incidents linked to the tenancy. The claim is supported by an invoice and photographic evidence, and is reasonable in quantum.
The claim for $11,811.94 for security guard costs is more substantial, but the Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that these costs were a necessary and proportionate response to repeated, serious safety concerns directly attributable to the tenant’s occupancy. The costs were incurred by the Body Corporate and passed on to the landlord. The Body Corporate’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances, and it is appropriate that the landlord be entitled to recover these costs from the party whose conduct necessitated them. The Tribunal accepts this as recoverable consequential loss arising from the tenant’s breach of her obligations under the tenancy.
Accordingly, I find the landlord’s claims for $287.50 and $11,811.94 proved.
As the landlord is wholly successful in their application, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee of $20.44 under section 102(2) of the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5089528 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 4I, 22-32 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5089528 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 4I, 22-32 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions