Signing on to a one-year fixed-term tenancy, they didn’t know that just months later they would be the victims of two burglaries that happened while they were at home in their central Wellington apartment.
In June this year, all five tenants were at home in the middle of the night when two intruders burgled their apartment taking about $5000 worth of belongings.
Two months later their apartment was burgled again in the middle of the day. Not all tenants were home, and a further $1800 worth of belongings was taken from a room while a tenant was out.
Police have since charged those alleged to have committed the burglaries and the matters are before the Wellington District Court.
The tenants acknowledged there was an issue with locking their front door which enabled the first burglary to happen, however, they argued if security measures were sufficient the intruders would not have had access to their floor in the first place.
Since the first burglary, the group installed a pin lock at their own cost on the front door, and believe the second burglary occurred because a tradesman who had visited that day didn’t shut the door properly.
Not only was the group impacted by the burglaries, but they reported several other things they believed impacted their safety.
Despite the building being only accessible by swipe card, the front door was often left open or unlocked.
A roller door to the building was meant to be locked by 6pm but the tenants said it would often stay unlocked after that time.
Access to the seventh floor of their building was restricted by key cards, however, their floor wasn’t as restricted, and members of the public could enter the building and use the lift or stairs.
The tenants were concerned about a brothel that operated on the floor above, and clients of the workers accessing the building after hours.
“The landlord is also aware of anecdotal accounts that brothel staff regularly issue key cards to their clients for use at all hours,” adjudicator Kaye Stirling said.
A reasonable sense of safety was the main concern of the group, who claimed it was affecting their mental health and wellbeing.
These included members of the public accessing the foyer and garage to urinate on the ground, change their clothing and smash wine bottles. Others would use drugs and dispose of paraphernalia.
Packages and mail were stolen from the mailbox area and the women witnessed someone lying on the floor of the lift.
The flatmates requested the landlord terminate their tenancy shortly after the second burglary, citing their security concerns as a major factor.
The landlord said they would only agree to termination if the group paid for three months of rent in compensation for breaking their lease early.
Stirling said this suggestion was an “outright rejection”.
The landlord had inspected locks and installed one on the stairwell, however, this wouldn’t stop people from accessing the tenant’s level via the lift.
The landlord believed security was more of an issue for the Body Corporate to address.
“I am satisfied that there has been an unforeseeable change in the tenants’ circumstances because of the burglaries, and the tenants no longer have a reasonable sense of safety and security at the premises,’' Stirling said.
“The fact that nothing has been done to lock off the lift and the security of the building appears to be lacking, means the tenants fear that the situation will continue, which I accept,” Stirling said.
Stirling said the young women would suffer the ongoing fear of intrusion as long as they continued to rent the apartment.
The landlord filed a cross-application against the tenants for more than $20,000 including loss of income from the tenants breaking their lease early, checking the CCTV footage and a dishwasher to be checked.
These were declined by Stirling who ruled entirely in favour of the tenants.
