The students, whose identities are suppressed in a decision by the Rent Board, told of customers who had access to the brothel day and night. They blame the two burglaries on insufficient security in the building, where drug use and other antisocial behavior were commonplace.
The women have been given an early termination of their lease after a juror said denying the interruption would cause the students “severe hardship”.
The five women moved into the seven-bedroom, fifth-floor apartment managed by Dominion Property Management in January this year.
They signed a one-year fixed-term lease and little did they know that a few months later they would be victims of two burglaries that happened while they were at home in their apartment in central Wellington.
In June of this year, all five tenants were home in the middle of the night when two intruders broke into their apartment and took about $5,000 worth of belongings.
Two months later, their apartment was broken into again in the middle of the day. Not all tenants were home, and an additional $1,800 worth of belongings were taken from a room while a tenant was away.
Police have since charged the suspects in the break-ins and the cases have been taken to Wellington District Court.
The tenants acknowledged that there was a problem locking their front door that caused the first burglary, but they argued that if security measures had been adequate, the intruders would not have been able to access their floor in the first place.
Since the first burglary, the group has installed a pin lock on the front door at their own expense and the second burglary occurred because a tradesman who had visited that day failed to close the door properly.
Not only was the group affected by the break-ins, but they reported several other things that they believed affected their safety.
Despite the fact that the building was only accessible with a pass, the front door was often open or unlocked.
A roller door to the building was supposed to be locked at 6 p.m., but tenants said it would often remain unlocked after that time.
Access to the seventh floor of their building was restricted with key cards, but their floor was not as restricted and members of the public could enter the building and use the elevator or stairs.
The tenants were concerned about a brothel operating on the floor above and clients of the workers entering the building after hours.
“The landlord is also aware of anecdotal stories that brothel staff regularly issue key cards to their customers for them to use all the time,” said juror Kaye Stirling.
A reasonable sense of security was the main concern of the group, who claimed it affected their mental health and well-being.
These included members of the public accessing the foyer and garage to urinate on the floor, change clothes, and smash wine bottles. Others would use drugs and throw away paraphernalia.
Packages and mail were stolen from the mailbox and the women witnessed someone lying on the floor of the elevator.
The housemates requested that the landlord cancel their rent shortly after the second burglary, citing security concerns as a major factor.
The landlord said they would only agree to terminate if the group paid three months’ rent as compensation for breaking their lease early.
Stirling said this suggestion was an “outright rejection”.
The landlord had inspected locks and placed one on the stairwell, but this did not stop people from entering the tenant’s level via the elevator.
The landlord felt that security was more of an issue for the Body Corporate to address.
“I am pleased that there has been an unforeseen change in tenants’ circumstances as a result of the break-ins, and that tenants no longer have a reasonable sense of safety and security in the property,” said Stirling.
“The fact that nothing has been done to close off the lift and the security of the building appears to be lacking means tenants fear the situation will continue, which I accept,” said Stirling.
Stirling said the young women would suffer the constant fear of burglary as long as they continued to rent the apartment.
The landlord filed a cross-suit against the tenants for more than $20,000, including lost income due to the tenants breaking their lease early, checking CCTV footage and checking a dishwasher.
These were rejected by Stirling who ruled entirely in favor of the tenants.