What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4792598 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy premises (the converted garage unit at the tenancy address) are

How much money was awarded in case 4792598?

Compensation: Partial Refund Of Rent: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4792598?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4792598?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10408805-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4792598 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy premises (the converted garage unit at the tenancy address) are

How much money was awarded in case 4792598?

Compensation: Partial Refund Of Rent: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4792598?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4792598?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10408805-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

148 Waring Road, Taupiri, RD 1, Taupiri 3791 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4792598 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4792598 — net $2,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: partial refund of rent	$2,000.00	partial refund of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,020.44
Bond	$900.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,020.44

Order

The tenancy premises (the converted garage unit at the tenancy address) are unlawful residential premises.
Phillip Higgins must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing on 10 May 2024, and both have made applications to the Tribunal.
These relate to a unit at the address which has been converted from previous use as a shed/garage and sits adjacent to the main house.
The tenancy started on 22 November 2023 and ended on 18 January 2024.
There is a bond of $900.00 which is lodged with the Bond Centre.
This started off as a dispute about the bond and alleged damage.
The tenant then amended his application to also ask whether the unit is legally able to be rented out.
Section 78A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) says that if tenancy premises are unlawful, the Tribunal must not order the tenant to pay any rent, damages, or compensation unless it would be unjust not to, and may order the landlord to refund some or all rent paid.
I made an adjournment order on 10 May 2024 and allowed the landlord the opportunity to provide compliance documents and a rent ledger.
The landlord has not submitted any documents.
I now set out my decisions on the applications. The tenant’s applications

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Section 19(1) RTA requires a landlord to send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
The tenancy started on 22 November 2023 and ended on 18 January 2024. The bond of $900.00 was lodged in late February 2024, about a month after the tenancy ended.
The landlord accepts that he did not lodge the bond within the time required. He said that the tenancy was so short that he did not think it was worthwhile to do so. He lodged it after the tenant made this application and a tenancy services mediator told him that he should.
The landlord has breached s19 which is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages (a fine) up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The only time a landlord can choose not to lodge a bond is if the bond is one week’s rent or less under a boarding house tenancy; s19(1A) RTA.
Every other amount paid as bond must be lodged within the timeframe. This is a mandatory requirement.
I have decided not to fine the landlord on this occasion.
My main reason for treating this occasion as a warning is that I accept the landlord’s statement that this is the first time he has rented out residential premises. I also see how he may have thought it unnecessary to lodge the bond when the tenancy ended unexpectedly quickly.
However, a bond is tenant money and must be kept safely at the independent Bond Centre so that any dispute about it is resolved through the Tribunal and not with a landlord holding funds themselves.

Is the tenancy unit unlawful?

Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by, for example, failing to check the legality of the unit, or by doing work to the unit without a building consent or not advising the council of a change of use of the unit. See section 78A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
If the unit is unlawful then the Tribunal can refund part or all of any rent paid; see section 78A(4) RTA.
Parliament has given the Tribunal the role of checking the legality of residential premises partly to make sure that landlords notify the building authority of any change of use or building work that needs a building consent.
Regulation is sometimes spoken about as unnecessary ‘red tape’, just there to stop people getting on with life.
What is not as often mentioned is that the tape is there for a reason. In this case, the reason is to make sure that people are living in safe and durable homes.
When a building authority is notified of a change of use which creates a new dwelling, it is required to check whether the building will comply with the building code especially regarding escape from fire, protection of other property, sanitary facilities, structural performance, and fire-rating performance; section 115 Building Act 2004.
The landlord told me that he has converted the unit from use as a shed or garage. He is a licensed plumber and has done the plumbing work himself. He says he engaged professionals to do the electrical work and building. He also said that the council has given him a “retrospective consent”.
I allowed the landlord time after the first hearing to provide me with any compliance documents. He has not done so.
I infer from the failure to provide further evidence that he does not have certification from the council. I am concerned that he has not at least provided an electrical compliance certificate.
My decision is that it is more probable than not that the converted garage unit does not have council consent to be used as a dwelling and that no building consent was obtained for the work done. The landlord did or arranged the conversion, so he has caused the unlawful occupation.
The tenancy premises are unlawful residential premises.
The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may also make a work order requiring the landlord to remove any impediment to lawful occupation or to comply with any building, health or safety requirements. The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA.
The intent is that landlords are not able to profit from unlawful premises that are, or may be, sub-standard.
Put simply, unless the council (which is the building authority) certifies that premises are compliant then the Tribunal cannot know that they are.
That said, the tenant was not unhappy with the facilities. There were no reported problems with cold or damp or other detriment. I do note that the cooking facilities were a bench top oven with a cooking ring that the tenant said did not work. It is this sort of makeshift arrangement that can be a fire-risk. Without an electrical compliance certificate there may be other areas of fire risk.
I do consider there to be special circumstances in that the tenant did receive some benefit from living at the unit. I have decided not to order a full refund of rent but to assess a partial refund.
The rent charged was $450.00 per week. I have decided that it is appropriate to refund $250.00 per week. The tenancy was 8 weeks long. This is a refund of $2,000.00.
The Tribunal can also award a fine or penalty of up to $7,200.00 for failure to comply with building laws requiring building consent or notification of a change of use; s78A(5) RTA.
I have decided not to do so as consider the compensation and the findings to be sufficient penalty. This is the first time the converted garage has been rented out and the landlord says he is not going to do so again. The landlord’s applications
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it must not make an order for rent arrears or compensation against the tenant unless, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to make the order; s78A(3)(a) RTA.
There are no special circumstances. I make no orders against the tenant.
The landlord’s applications for compensation are dismissed. Filing fee and suppression of name
The tenant has been successful in the proceedings, so I award the filing fee and suppress his name from the published order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4792598 — net $2,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: partial refund of rent	$2,000.00	partial refund of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,020.44
Bond	$900.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,020.44

Order

The tenancy premises (the converted garage unit at the tenancy address) are unlawful residential premises.
Phillip Higgins must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing on 10 May 2024, and both have made applications to the Tribunal.
These relate to a unit at the address which has been converted from previous use as a shed/garage and sits adjacent to the main house.
The tenancy started on 22 November 2023 and ended on 18 January 2024.
There is a bond of $900.00 which is lodged with the Bond Centre.
This started off as a dispute about the bond and alleged damage.
The tenant then amended his application to also ask whether the unit is legally able to be rented out.
Section 78A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) says that if tenancy premises are unlawful, the Tribunal must not order the tenant to pay any rent, damages, or compensation unless it would be unjust not to, and may order the landlord to refund some or all rent paid.
I made an adjournment order on 10 May 2024 and allowed the landlord the opportunity to provide compliance documents and a rent ledger.
The landlord has not submitted any documents.
I now set out my decisions on the applications. The tenant’s applications

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Section 19(1) RTA requires a landlord to send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
The tenancy started on 22 November 2023 and ended on 18 January 2024. The bond of $900.00 was lodged in late February 2024, about a month after the tenancy ended.
The landlord accepts that he did not lodge the bond within the time required. He said that the tenancy was so short that he did not think it was worthwhile to do so. He lodged it after the tenant made this application and a tenancy services mediator told him that he should.
The landlord has breached s19 which is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages (a fine) up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The only time a landlord can choose not to lodge a bond is if the bond is one week’s rent or less under a boarding house tenancy; s19(1A) RTA.
Every other amount paid as bond must be lodged within the timeframe. This is a mandatory requirement.
I have decided not to fine the landlord on this occasion.
My main reason for treating this occasion as a warning is that I accept the landlord’s statement that this is the first time he has rented out residential premises. I also see how he may have thought it unnecessary to lodge the bond when the tenancy ended unexpectedly quickly.
However, a bond is tenant money and must be kept safely at the independent Bond Centre so that any dispute about it is resolved through the Tribunal and not with a landlord holding funds themselves.

Is the tenancy unit unlawful?

Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by, for example, failing to check the legality of the unit, or by doing work to the unit without a building consent or not advising the council of a change of use of the unit. See section 78A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
If the unit is unlawful then the Tribunal can refund part or all of any rent paid; see section 78A(4) RTA.
Parliament has given the Tribunal the role of checking the legality of residential premises partly to make sure that landlords notify the building authority of any change of use or building work that needs a building consent.
Regulation is sometimes spoken about as unnecessary ‘red tape’, just there to stop people getting on with life.
What is not as often mentioned is that the tape is there for a reason. In this case, the reason is to make sure that people are living in safe and durable homes.
When a building authority is notified of a change of use which creates a new dwelling, it is required to check whether the building will comply with the building code especially regarding escape from fire, protection of other property, sanitary facilities, structural performance, and fire-rating performance; section 115 Building Act 2004.
The landlord told me that he has converted the unit from use as a shed or garage. He is a licensed plumber and has done the plumbing work himself. He says he engaged professionals to do the electrical work and building. He also said that the council has given him a “retrospective consent”.
I allowed the landlord time after the first hearing to provide me with any compliance documents. He has not done so.
I infer from the failure to provide further evidence that he does not have certification from the council. I am concerned that he has not at least provided an electrical compliance certificate.
My decision is that it is more probable than not that the converted garage unit does not have council consent to be used as a dwelling and that no building consent was obtained for the work done. The landlord did or arranged the conversion, so he has caused the unlawful occupation.
The tenancy premises are unlawful residential premises.
The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may also make a work order requiring the landlord to remove any impediment to lawful occupation or to comply with any building, health or safety requirements. The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA.
The intent is that landlords are not able to profit from unlawful premises that are, or may be, sub-standard.
Put simply, unless the council (which is the building authority) certifies that premises are compliant then the Tribunal cannot know that they are.
That said, the tenant was not unhappy with the facilities. There were no reported problems with cold or damp or other detriment. I do note that the cooking facilities were a bench top oven with a cooking ring that the tenant said did not work. It is this sort of makeshift arrangement that can be a fire-risk. Without an electrical compliance certificate there may be other areas of fire risk.
I do consider there to be special circumstances in that the tenant did receive some benefit from living at the unit. I have decided not to order a full refund of rent but to assess a partial refund.
The rent charged was $450.00 per week. I have decided that it is appropriate to refund $250.00 per week. The tenancy was 8 weeks long. This is a refund of $2,000.00.
The Tribunal can also award a fine or penalty of up to $7,200.00 for failure to comply with building laws requiring building consent or notification of a change of use; s78A(5) RTA.
I have decided not to do so as consider the compensation and the findings to be sufficient penalty. This is the first time the converted garage has been rented out and the landlord says he is not going to do so again. The landlord’s applications
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it must not make an order for rent arrears or compensation against the tenant unless, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to make the order; s78A(3)(a) RTA.
There are no special circumstances. I make no orders against the tenant.
The landlord’s applications for compensation are dismissed. Filing fee and suppression of name
The tenant has been successful in the proceedings, so I award the filing fee and suppress his name from the published order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4792598 — Tenancy dispute at 148 Waring Road, Taupiri, RD 1, Taupiri 3791

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4792598 — Tenancy dispute at 148 Waring Road, Taupiri, RD 1, Taupiri 3791

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Is the tenancy unit unlawful?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Is the tenancy unit unlawful?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions