A landlord has been unable to have their tenant evicted at the Tenancy Tribunal for allegedly offering sex work and running a brothel from their central Auckland apartment (file photo). Photo / 123RF
A landlord has been unable to have their tenant evicted at the Tenancy Tribunal for allegedly offering sex work and running a brothel from their central Auckland apartment (file photo). Photo / 123RF
A landlord’s attempt to evict a tenant for alleged brothel activity was denied by the Tenancy Tribunal.
The tenant denied that CCTV footage and screenshots of online ads proved sex work was being offered from his apartment.
The Prostitution Reform Act 2003 can allow small brothels to operate in residential homes without breaching tenancy agreements, the tribunal said.
A landlord who found online ads he believed showed his central Auckland apartment being used as a brothel has been unable to evict his tenant.
Kainan Shi, director of the landlord company GK Group Property, brought photos of the ads to a recent Tenancy Tribunal hearing, including one picturing an Asian woman offering sex from the building’s address.
He also submitted CCTV footage showing men and women moving through the multi-storey building’s elevator “day and night”, and a text message allegedly inviting a client to the tenant’s apartment for sex.
However, the tenant, whose name was suppressed, denied sex was being sold from his apartment, according to the tribunal decision.
While the “evidence might suggest” sex work was being sold from the apartment, it was not grounds to kick the tenant out, she said.
The landlord had argued the apartment was being used to run a commercial business, but Stirling said the tenant was using it primarily as a place to live.
A landlord has been unable to have their tenant evicted at the Tenancy Tribunal for allegedly offering sex work and running a brothel from their central Auckland apartment. Photo / 123rf
Additionally, under the law, small brothels are allowed to be run from residential homes, she said.
How it started
The landlord’s issue with his tenant first arose when the building’s manager told him about the alleged sex work.
The manager showed landlord Shi a text message that purportedly showed a sex worker saying they were available and telling their client to go to the tenant’s apartment number.
However, landlord Shi was unable to confirm who had sent the text message to the sex worker because the building manager didn’t want to share that information, Stirling wrote in her decision.
Looking at the people in the CCTV footage, Shi told the tribunal he believed the women were sex workers and the men their clients.
Shi and the building manager also collected a series of online advertisements.
That included “screen shots of photos of an Asian woman advertising her services as a sex worker from the building”.
Shi believed one of the women living with the tenant was the same woman as in the ad.
He questioned the tenant about his female friends, before serving a 14-day breach notice for running a commercial business from the apartment.
However, the tenant denied the allegations, saying the sex worker photos and cellphone numbers were not those of his flatmates.
Nor was the text message from them, he said.
Regarding the CCTV footage, the tenant said in many instances it showed people coming out of or standing by the lift.
“None of the images establish that all those shown have entered the apartment,” he said.
As well as saying he had been offered sex in the lift, he said he did his own Google search and it showed “various people may be operating as sex workers from the building”.
He said he is primarily using the apartment as a place to live.
In denying the landlord’s application to evict the tenant, Stirling also included comments about prostitution laws in her written decision.
She said the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 decriminalised prostitution and allowed for “small owner-operated brothels” to be run from residential homes.
These typically don’t need certificates or resource consent like larger sex-worker businesses, she said.
“That fact alone will not be a breach of the tenancy agreement, even though it is a commercial activity,” Stirling said.