What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9050324?

The tribunal order states: Haodong Peng must pay Body Corporate 383792 $25.639.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 9050324?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9050324?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Unit Titles, Costs.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9050324?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10608145-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9050324?

The tribunal order states: Haodong Peng must pay Body Corporate 383792 $25.639.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 9050324?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9050324?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Unit Titles, Costs.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9050324?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10608145-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9050324 — Harassment

Order

Haodong Peng must pay Body Corporate 383792 $25.639.00 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionsApplicantRespondent Security company charges $15,264.50 Building management charges $5,216.40 Interest: to 24 July 2024 $2,803.85 Costs: Body Corporate charges $1,854.25 Filing Fee $500.00 Total award $25,639.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 24 July 2024. Mr McConnell attended as General Manager for Boutique Body Corporates Limited, representing the applicant Body Corporate 383792. Mr Zhang attended as representative for Haodong Peng, the owner.
The respondent is a unit owner of an apartment on level 7 of an 8-level apartment complex, described by the applicant as “small and affordable”.
The apartment was managed by a property management company who leased it to a social housing provider. The social housing provider then rented the premises to a tenant.
The tenancy ended on 16 February 2023 when the tenant was evicted following an order of the Tribunal.
The application is a claim for on charges, costs and interest pursuant to section 127 and 128 of the Unit Titles Act 2010.

Does the Unit Owner owe the charges claimed?

The body corporate seeks to recover the costs of extra building management charges and engaging private security at the premises due to breaches of the body corporate rules by the tenant of the unit and associates of the tenant.
A unit owner must pay all body corporate outgoings payable for the unit. See sections 80(1)(f) and 121(1) Unit Titles Act 2010. The Tribunal must determine whether the outgoings claimed in this application for this unit are payable.
Section 127 of the Act provides for recovery of money expended where person at fault and states: “(1) This section applies if the body corporate does any repair, work, or act that it is required or authorised to do, by or under this Act, or by or under any other Act, and the repair, work, or act was rendered necessary by reason of any wilful or negligent act or omission on the part of, or any breach of the Act, the body corporate operational rules, or any regulations by, any unit owner or his or her tenant, lessee, licensee, or invitee. (2)Any expense incurred by the body corporate in doing the repair, work, or act, together with any reasonable costs incurred in collecting the expense, is recoverable as a debt due to the body corporate (less any amount already paid) by the person who was the unit owner at the time the expense became payable or by the person who is the unit owner at the time proceedings are instituted.”
The body corporate seeks an order for payment of invoices, recovery costs and interest relating to costs of security and additional attendances of the building management company on the grounds that these extra costs were the result of the actions of the owner’s tenant, licensee or invitee.
The body corporate claims that the costs were incurred as a result of the tenant and/or her visitors breaching rule 17 of the operational rules in relation to noise, behaviour and conduct on various occasions which resulted in a need for a security guard at the building and additional building management time.
The owner disputes the claim that security or additional costs were necessary on the basis that they have not been provided with proof that the tenant of the unit caused the breaches or that the other persons alleged to have caused trouble were the tenant’s invitees.
The onus is on the applicant body corporate to provide evidence to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities. This includes evidence of the breaches and of who is responsible.
In order to determine whether the owner is liable for the charges claimed the Tribunal must consider the following questions:
Were there breaches of the body corporate operational rules?
If yes, are the person or persons responsible either the unit owner or his or her tenant, lessee, licensee or invitee?
If there has been a breach, are the charges that the body corporate is claiming rendered necessary by reason of the breach?

Were there breaches of the body corporate operational rules?

Rule 17 of the body corporate operational rules states: “Noise, behaviour and conduct An Owner of occupier shall not: a) Make or permit and noise or carry out or permit any conduct or behaviour, in any unitor on the common property which is likely to interfere with the use and enjoyment of the unit title development by other Owners, This specifically precludes the following: i)The loud playing of musical instrument, stereo, radio, television etc. headphones are recommended. ii)The excessive and loud use of any washing machine or other household appliance iii)Noise in the common areas between 10.00pm – 7am. b) Wilfully damage property belonging to Madison house, other Owners, Occupiers, Guests, Employees or Tenants of the Building. c) Consume alcohol in the common area, including lifts, corridors or in the grounds of the property. d) Smoke in the unit, balcony or in any common area. Cigarette butts must be properly extinguished and disposed of in bins/ashtrays provided beside the rubbish bins to the right-hand side of the entrance. e) Smoke Marijuana in any unit, on the balcony or in any common area. f)Possess or use any controlled or illegal drug, substance or prohibited plant within the confines of the building or grounds. g) Possess any equipment to aid in the use of illegal drugs or substances. h) Behave in a disorderly, threatening or intimidating manner, including fighting or attempted bodily injury to another person within the confines of the building or grounds.
The applicant claimed that there were breaches of Rule 17 by the tenant Aroha and her associates, in particular her partner Lana also referred to as Alana. These breaches included playing of loud stereo music, noise in the common areas between 10pm and 7am, behaving in a disorderly threatening and intimidating manner including fighting with other persons within the confines of the building.
The applicant provided the following evidence in support of breaches: (a)Statements of evidence from Phil Porteous, Callan Attwell and Richard Stuart dated 24 July 2024. Phil Porteous and Callan Attwell verbally confirmed their written statements by telephone attendance at the hearing. These people were residents of the building while the tenant was in occupation of Unit 708 and each recounted multiple experiences of loud and disorderly behaviour from the tenant Aroha and her associates. (b)In particular, Richard Stuart and Phil Porteous recounted that on 1 December 2022 there was a fight in the common area involving Aroha and her associates which was loud and intimidating for residents. Richard Stuart gave evidence that they heard noise and entered the hallway and discovered the tenant and her associate sweeping up broken glass. Later Lana was observed being brought to the unit by the Police where she returned a bag to Aroha. Mr Porteous gave oral evidence that Lana was “very much a resident” at the unit. Following this incident Lana returned to the premises on 3 December 2024 and he her drove her to the Police Station in order to ascertain whether she had been trespassed from the building which she had. (c)Copies of email correspondence between the building management, the body corporate and the landlord and unit owner regarding the ongoing concerns about breaches of the rules by the occupants of Unit 708 between November 2022 and February 2023. (d)Copies of security logs (e)Photographs of the tenant’s partner (f)Copies of the invoices for the expenses claimed and demands for payment.
The unit owner challenged a photograph provided of a mark on a wall which the applicant claimed was blood. As insufficient evidence was provided of the date and location of this photograph, I have not considered it as part of the applicant’s evidence.
Having considered the evidence I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there were breaches of Rule 17 of the body corporate rules by the tenant of Unit 708 and/or her visitors. Are the person or persons responsible for the breaches either the unit owner or his or her tenant, licensee or invitee?
It is accepted that the unit owner himself did not personally breach the body corporate rules.
The owner leased the premises to a social housing provider who in turn rented the premises to Aroha who lived at the premises. Her partner Lana was also at the premises along with other associates who visited from time to time.
The tenant rented the premises from Airedale Property Limited who leased the premises from the owner for the purpose of providing social housing. I find that the tenant had licence to occupy the premises pursuant to the tenancy agreement between herself and Airedale Property Limited and that she had visitors who she was responsible for pursuant to section 41 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Therefore, the breaches were caused by the unit owner’s licensee. If there has been a breach, are the charges that the body corporate is claiming rendered necessary by reason of the breach?
The body corporate sought reimbursement of the cost of extra building management expenses and the costs of hiring security for each night from 1 December 2024 to 15 January 2023 and then for weekends until early February 2023.
The body corporate also sought reimbursement for hiring security from 16 February 2023 until 19 February 2023 after the tenant was evicted from the premises to ensure she did not return.
The unit owner claims that it was not necessary to hire security at the premises as a result of the breaches.
Having considered the evidence in this case I find that the ongoing issues with this tenancy culminating in the incident on 1 December 2023 necessitated extra building management work and the hiring of private security due to the breaches by the unit owner’s licensee. The building management called Police in the first instance on 1 December, however, I am satisfied that further security was required to ensure safety of other residents at the complex as evidenced by the tenant’s associate returning two days later.
However, I am not satisfied that the hiring of a private security guard by the body corporate from 16 to 19 February 2023 after the tenancy had ended and the tenant been evicted was necessary. The tenant was evicted on 16 February 2023 and access to the building removed. There was no evidence provided of further rule breaches by the tenant after the landlord was granted possession from 9 February 2023. The landlord offered to provide security for 24 hours after eviction, however, the body corporate preferred to hire their own security. The resources of the New Zealand Police are available, and I would expect the building manager to make efforts to resolve matters with Police assistance in the first instance if there are safety issues at the building regarding a non resident.
The unit owner is ordered to pay the amount of $15,264.50 being security on- charges (3/12/2023-11/02/2023) and body corporate administration pursuant to invoice dated 24 February 2023 due for payment on 10 March 2023, together with One Place for Property on-charges invoiced on 28 February 2023 due for payment on 13 March 2023 in the sum of $5216.40.

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

If a unit owner owes money to the body corporate under section 127 of the UTA interest accrues in respect of so much of the debt as remains unpaid.
A body corporate may charge interest up to 10% per annum. See section 128 Unit Titles Act 2010.
The body corporate has resolved to charge interest at 10% per annum on unpaid levies. The unit owner is ordered to pay interest on the amounts ordered from the date the invoices fell due to the hearing date, being $2103.57 for the private security invoice due 10 March 2023 and $700.28 for the One Place Property on-charges invoice due 23 March 2023.

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

Pursuant to section 127 UTA, and as resolved at meetings of the Body Corporate, the Body Corporate is entitled to recover any reasonable costs incurred by it in collecting unpaid expenses as a debt due by the owner to the Body Corporate. In accordance with the judgments (of the District Court and Court of Appeal respectively) in Body Corporate 162791 v Cheah DC Auckland, CIV2014-004-0120, 24 June 2014 and Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185, the Tribunal must order that the reasonable costs incurred by the Body Corporate in recovering the expenses, objectively assessed, be paid by a defaulting unit owner. I am satisfied that the costs ordered above are reasonable.
Because the body corporate has succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Section 176(1) Unit Titles Act 2010 and section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9050324 — Harassment in Auckland, Auckland

Tenancy Tribunal case 9050324 — Harassment in Auckland, Auckland

Order

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the charges claimed?

Were there breaches of the body corporate operational rules?

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?

Order

Reasons

Does the Unit Owner owe the charges claimed?

Were there breaches of the body corporate operational rules?

Is the Unit owner liable for interest?

Is the Unit owner liable for costs?