Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5324089 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 310, 135 Hobson Street, Auckland Central,
Decided 27 Aug 2025 · Published 27 Aug 2025 · Application 5324089
Mixed / unclear
- Rent arrears
- Unit Titles
Order
- If Lisa Hemo Tawai breaches the Body Corporate Rules again before the end of the fixed term tenancy, the tenancy may be terminated by the landlord giving her 7 days’ notice.
ORDER
- Lisa Hemo Tawai must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited City As Agent For Jinsheng Ren the sum of $28.00 immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord applied for termination of the fixed-term tenancy on the basis of rent arrears and breaches of the body corporate rules.
- The tenant has cleared her arrears, which were less than 21 days’ rent. However, because of the multiple breaches of the body corporate rules, the owner seeks termination.
Should a termination order be made?
- Under section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act, the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
- The tenant has breached her obligations on several occasions by not complying with the rules of the Body Corporate. Each of these has resulted in a Body Corporate Breach Notice requiring a fee of $276 to be paid. The tenant has paid five of these. There are two more in the system.
- Some of the breaches are less serious and would not usually give rise to termination. On one occasion a visitor was smoking in the lift and lobby. The tenant left a pile of laundry powder in the common area. An e-scooter was left in the wrong carpark.
- On two occasions the tenant has thrown her swipe card out the window to a friend to let themselves in. The rules prohibit her from giving her swipe card to anyone else. Ms Hong explained that the Body Corporate is very strict on security. The location of the premises means that there are often people going to and from the City Mission and there is a risk of an opportunist letting themselves into the building. On another occasion, the tenant left a rolled-up towel in the fire door while she popped outside to collect something from an Uber.
- Most of the actions that have led to the breach notices have been as a result of viewing security footage. It is not a case of neighbours complaining.
- There is footage of someone interfering with the security camera in the lift. It is alleged that this was a friend of the tenants. There is also footage of the tenant assaulting someone in the lift. There is no suggestion that the person was another occupant of the building. It is nonetheless a serious matter. Other residents should be able to get into the lift without fear of witnessing an assault.
- The tenant has not disputed the notices, choosing to pay the fee and try to retain her tenancy.
- The owner is understandably frustrated at receiving so many of these notices and seeks termination of the tenancy.
- The combination of the breaches and in particular, the second instance of throwing the card out the window and the assault in the lift, lead me to conclude that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. In other words, the grounds for termination have been made out. However, I have decided to make the order conditional. The tenant has shown herself willing to try to remedy the situation and has undertaken to refamiliarize herself with the Body Corporate Rules.
- If the tenant does not breach the Body Corporate Rules again, the tenancy will continue until 11 May 2026. Any further breach will lead to termination on 7 days’ notice. That means that the landlord will need to issue a breach notice and a termination notice to vacate within 7 days.
- Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited City as Agent For Jinsheng Ren has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.