What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4913074 about?

The tribunal order states: Conrad Joseph Lawrence Goodger, Rent Ezi Limited and Nice View Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4913074?

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 4913074?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4913074?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12115735-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4913074 about?

The tribunal order states: Conrad Joseph Lawrence Goodger, Rent Ezi Limited and Nice View Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4913074?

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 4913074?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4913074?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12115735-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Multiple Tenancies Tenancy Tribunal Case 4913074 — Exemplary damages

Order

Conrad Joseph Lawrence Goodger, Rent Ezi Limited and Nice View Limited must immediately pay The Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment on behalf of 117 tenants, $81,050.00 in exemplary damages as detailed in appendix A, and as follows: • $53,600 being awards of $800 exemplary damages for breach of section 66I(c) of the Act in 67 tenancies. • $15,250 being awards of $250 exemplary damages for breach of section 137 of the Act in 61 tenancies. • $12,200 being awards of $200 exemplary damages for breach of section 13A of the Act in 61 tenancies.

Reasons

The Applicant, the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) (the Chief Executive) brings these proceedings 1 on behalf of 132 tenants in 128 tenancies at eight residential properties in Queenstown. The Applicant is represented by Ms Siania and Mr Miller.
Mr Goodger represented the Respondents and is a director of both Respondent companies. He attended the hearings with his support person Mr Shelswell.
The Chief Executive has wide-ranging powers in relation to the oversight of residential tenancies in New Zealand, and that includes an ability to bring claims to the Tenancy Tribunal. The Chief Executive’s powers are exercised under delegated authority to officers within the Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team (TCIT) who filed the proceedings. Statutorily however, the claims are brought by the Chief Executive.
These relevant properties are owned and managed 2 by the Respondents and are as follows (the properties): i. 53 McBride Street. Owned by Rent Ezi Ltd. Mr Goodger is the sole director. ii. 48C Huff Street. Owned by Mr Goodger and another. 3 iii. 48D Huff Street. Owned by Mr Goodger. iv. 10 Perkins Road. Owned by Mr Goodger. v. 2 Johnson Place. Owned by Nice View Limited. Mr Goodger is the sole director. vi. 1017 Frankton Road. Owned by Mr Goodger. vii. 1/1084 Frankton Road. Owned by Mr Goodger and another. viii. 2/1084 Frankton Road. Owned by Mr Goodger and another.
The accepted 4 tenancies are listed at annex “A”. The claims are multiple alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and are set out at paragraph 15 below. Background
Mr Goodger has been owning and managing rental properties, primarily on his own in the Queenstown area since 1994. 1 filed within the Chief Executives enforcement jurisdiction 2 Mr Goodger is the sole manager of the properties 3 The other owner Mami Tsurumi was removed from proceedings by consent on 20 February 2025. 4 They are less than alleged, see discussion below
In 2019 TCIT investigated some of Mr Goodger’s properties upon complaint of a tenant, but no further action was taken.
Following a fire in 2020 at another of Mr Goodger’s properties, a joint investigation between the Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC), TCIT and Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) commenced (Operation Phoenix). The investigation was into the compliance of several of Mr Goodger’s rental properties.
In October 2021 Mr Goodger was interviewed with his lawyer by TCIT.
The TCIT investigation ended in 2022 with Mr Goodger being warned regarding his non-compliance with the Act 5 (the Warning Letter). He continued to work with FENZ and QLDC on compliance issues.
In June 2023 TCIT received a complaint from a former tenant of Mr Goodger’s at 53 McBride Street. A further joint investigation commenced (Operation Flywheel) between TCIT, QLDC and FENZ.
Site visits were undertaken by representatives of all agencies on 2 and 3 August 2023. All agencies identified areas of concern with the properties and in August 2023 TCIT wrote to Mr Goodger seeking further documentation (the Notice). 6
Communication between Mr Goodger and TCIT continued, and in April 2024 Mr Goodger was formally interviewed. Unsatisfied that Mr Goodger was complying with the Act, on 12 June 2024 the Applicant filed these proceedings with the Tribunal.
Mr Goodger was served in December 2024 and a case conference was held on 15 January 2025. Mr Goodger filed a number of interlocutory claims and sought multiple adjournments in response. The hearing of all claims took place over seven days in April, May and June 2025. The claims
The Applicant’s claims are as follows: i. That the Respondent has breached section 66I(c) of the Act by failing to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises of 73 tenancies at 4 properties. ii. That the Respondent has breached section 123A(4) of the Act by failing to provide requested documents by TCIT regarding 8 properties. 5 by letter of 15 March 2022 6 28 August 2023 iii. That the Respondent has breached section 137(1) of the Act by contracting to contravene the Act with 128 tenancies iv. That the Respondent has breached section 13A(2) of the Act by failing to include compliant insurance statements in tenancy agreements of 128 tenancies. v. That the Respondent has breached section 13A(1A) of the Act by failing to include compliant insulation statements in tenancy agreements of 128 tenancies. vi. That the Respondent has breached section 13A(1CA) of the Act by failing to include compliant Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) statements in tenancy agreements of 128 tenancies. 7 vii. That the Respondent has breached section 13A(1) of the Act by failing to include the minimum mandatory information in tenancy agreements of 128 tenancies. viii. That the Respondent has breached section 66C of the Act by failing to include the minimum mandatory information in boarding house agreements of 128 tenancies.
The Applicant withdrew the claim to order the Respondent to produce the omitted 8 documents on the final day of the hearing.
The Respondent made the following interlocutory claims: i. TCIT investigators obtained access to the properties unlawfully, as such the evidence obtained is inadmissible. ii. TCIT investigated matters outside of the scope of the initial complainant’s raised issues which makes the investigation unlawful. iii. TCIT investigated matters it was not authorised to which makes the investigation unlawful and evidence inadmissible. iv. Investigators sought documentation from him they were not entitled to which makes the investigation unlawful. v. Investigators misused documentation provided to them to obtain evidence that should be inadmissible. vi. The complainant was coerced and/or pressured into her involvement in the process and therefore the investigation was unlawful.
Mr Goodger additionally made complaints to the Ombudsman, the Privacy Commissioner and MBIE. Those complaints are alternative processes to the Tribunal and as I understand it, had not been completed by the last day of 7 All boarding houses were required to comply with the HHS by 1 July 2021. 8 From the Notice demand hearing. I refer to these complaint mechanisms in my decision as the “alternative jurisdictions”.
Mr Goodger’s claims were heard and determined on the first day of hearing by way of oral decision. I record that decision firstly below by answering the following questions: i. Was the investigation lawful? ii. Have obligations of natural justice been breached? iii. Was the evidence obtained lawfully? iv. Did the investigators enter the properties lawfully? v. Is the Applicant’s evidence admissible? vi. Were the proceedings brought lawfully? Respondent’s claims

Was the investigation lawful?

Mr Goodger’s submission is that he is unclear whether MBIE had legitimate grounds for the operation as they have not disclosed the initial scope or legal basis for its initiation. He considers the investigation was a “fishing expedition” or put another way, investigators were looking for problems which, he submits, is not the intent of the Act.
Mr Goodger’s view is that both Operation Phoenix and Operation Flywheel were targeted towards him in an effort to put him out of business. He references an alleged statement by a TCIT employee, Dave MacDonald in the 2019 investigation that they were looking for a “big fish” in Queenstown, and he was going to be it. He says they were predisposed to finding issues with him and had the end goal of charging him regardless of what they found.
Specific to this investigation, Mr Goodger submits investigators used a potential minor issue as identified by the complainant to justify accessing multiple properties to search for any potential breach.
As discussed at several points throughout the hearings, any concerns Mr Goodger has with the practices of investigators I leave in the alternative jurisdictions. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the specific actions of investigators in the course of their investigations provided they comply with the Act.
Section 123 of the Act provides many of the answers to Mr Goodger’s complaints as this section outlines the Chief Executive’s functions and powers with respect to the Act. Specifically relevant here: a. Section 123(1)(a) entitles the Chief Executive to investigate any matters generally affecting or that may affect the interests of parties to tenancy agreements, or any such matters arising in any particular case. This gives the Chief Executive a wide scope of investigation. b. Section 123(1)(cb) entitles the Chief Executive to monitor and assess the compliance of landlords with the Act. c. Section 123(1)(d) entitles the Chief Executive to investigate whether on the complaint of a party or not, of any alleged breach of this Act, or of any tenancy agreement, and the taking of such action, whether involving prosecution or other proceedings, negotiation, or arbitration, as the chief executive thinks proper.
The Chief Executive is therefore entitled to investigate any landlord’s compliance with the Act in any way, and are not restricted to a complaint to initiate an investigation. It thereby follows that if a complaint is made and during its investigation other concerns are identified, section 123(1)(a) of the Act allows those to be investigated.
Mr Goodger had been warned as a result of Operation Phoenix that TCIT considered he was operating his tenancies unlawfully and had been investigated previously. The Warning Letter was providing him an opportunity to rectify the alleged breaches. When a complaint was subsequently made that indicated he may still not be complying, they were, I consider, obliged to investigate.
As part of the investigation site visits were undertaken at which further concerns were observed. The usual process was then commenced, and Mr Goodger was asked for documentation and then invited for interview. It was not until Mr Goodger had had a number of communications and interactions with MBIE that proceedings were lodged.
The basis for the lodgement was, stated simply, that he had been investigated and warned previously and appeared to be still breaching the Act. This is a valid basis for lodgement of proceedings, and the Tribunal must consider claims lodged by the Chief Executive.
There is no evidence that TCIT were targeting Mr Goodger and trying to identify an issue upon which they could prosecute.
Mr Goodger also submits that the complainant did not have legal standing to trigger such an investigation because she was only a “flatmate”, and not a legal tenant of 53 McBride St.
It is accepted by both parties that Mr Goodger ran 53 McBride St as a boarding house. 9 Despite the wording in the complainant’s agreement, I consider her a tenant of a boarding house for the reasons discussed further below. Regardless, as above, MBIE did not require a tenant’s complaint to initiate the investigation.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the evidence establishes that the investigation was lawful.

Have obligations of natural justice been breached?

Mr Goodger submits that investigators and the Tribunal have breached obligations of natural justice as follows: a. Investigators did not provide him with specific details of the alleged breaches under investigation. b. The proceedings were filed in June 2024 and yet he was not served until December. c. The proceedings progressed excessively quickly, prejudicing his ability to respond. d. The demand for documentation in the Notice was too broad.
Natural justice refers to the fundamental principles of fairness that must be followed by public authorities when making decisions that affect individuals' rights, obligations, or interests. It ensures that individuals are treated fairly and have an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made that impacts them. It is the process that the Tribunal follows and is also enshrined in section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
The evidence provided does not establish that investigators failed to raise all areas of concern with Mr Goodger throughout their investigation. The issues previously warned about were the focus of the interview and subsequent proceedings. However, as above, investigators’ specific conduct in the investigation is not something over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction.
Further, natural justice principles do not extend so far as to require investigators to advise a Respondent specifically of all the claims they intend to bring against them before they do. This has been discussed previously in the High Court in Maqbool v Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2024] NZHC 3292 at paragraph 23: “I am not persuaded that the principles of natural justice required MBIE to disclose documents to Mr Maqbool before commencing proceedings. MBIE was 9 See section 66B of the Act for the definition of boarding house free to investigate without having to seek a response from Mr Maqbool at every stage.”
Mr Goodger distinguishes the Maqbool case from this situation where there are multiple boarding houses involved. Given the natural justice principles discussed in Maqbool were generalised, I consider them applicable here.
Natural justice does however require a respondent have a fair opportunity to respond to the claims before a decision is made on them.
Mr Goodger quite naturally raised concern at the fact that proceedings were lodged in June (of which he was notified at the time) and he was not served with all documentation until December. He attaches some deception on the part of the TCIT team to this delay. Whilst I understand this concern, I find no evidence that these proceedings departed from the usual course.
When TCIT lodges a claim with the Tribunal, Tenancy Services assesses and compiles it in a way that it can be served on the respondent and provided to the Tribunal. This step did take some time because of the number of claims and documents, however this was due to Tenancy Services, not TCIT. Put another way, TCIT had handed the case over to the lawyers who filed proceedings at which point control for the matter was transferred to Tenancy Services and later the Ministry of Justice and Tribunal.
As discussed in earlier decisions 10 Mr Goodger had adequate time to prepare and respond to the claims after they were first served on him in December 2024. Not only was the first hearing held five months after the claims were served, but there was over a two month period between the first hearing day and the last. Clear direction was provided to Mr Goodger about what he was required to respond to on several occasions. In many ways he was advantaged as he had two month-long gaps between hearings to develop his defence.
There was no collusion between TCIT and the Tribunal in ensuring the proceedings were expedited. As noted, as soon as the claims were filed, TCIT lost control of the procedure. The process was then governed by Tenancy Services, the Ministry of Justice and the Tribunal, the latter of which is statutorily directed 11 to determine disputes expeditiously.
Turning to the Notice which Mr Goodger says was too broad and as such could not be complied with. Specifically, he says that one complaint about one property does not justify a request for tenancy related documents for all properties managed.
The Notice specified the relevant properties and advised that TCIT had been informed that Mr Goodger may not be meeting all of his legal requirements 10 17 March 2025, 28 March 2025 and 1 April 2025 11 See section 85 of the Act regarding the properties. The specific concerns related to repair, insulation, smoke alarms and health and safety.
The letter specifically referred to sections 123A, 30, and 133 of the Act. The documents requested were: a. The tenancy agreements. b. Inspection reports. c. HHS compliance documents. d. Insulation compliance documents. e. Smoke alarm compliance documents.
The letter did not refer to a specific tenancy but infers that all agreements and affiliated documents for all properties for all tenancies in the preceding 12 months should be provided. This is an exceptionally broad request given nine properties were nominated. 12
The relevant sections of the Act are as follows: 12 I discuss this further below
Section 123A clearly states what documents a landlord must retain and what documents an investigator may request. They must relate to a specific tenancy.
However, section 133(1) empowers an investigator to request all tenancy agreements to which a landlord is a party that are current or ended in the preceding 12 months. Therefore, the investigator was not restricted to only requesting a tenancy agreement that related to a specific alleged breach at a particular property as Mr Goodger would have it.
I agree with Mr Goodger that the request was unnecessarily general and unclear, and I discuss this further below. It was also considerable. I appreciate the burden of work this request placed on Mr Goodger however by section 133(1) of the Act, MBIE were lawfully entitled to request all the tenancy agreements for tenancies that occurred or ended in the preceding 12 months.
My interpretation of the relevant sections is that a request for specific documentation such as maintenance records, inspection reports, etc, must relate to specific tenancies. Therefore, I am not convinced of the lawfulness of the request for generalised maintenance/compliance documents unrelated to a specific tenancy. That argument is however redundant here because the Chief Executive is only seeking redress for Mr Goodger’s failure to provide the full tenancy agreements. Mr Goodger can, and has, taken up the issue of unclear wording directly with MBIE as is appropriate.
As investigators were entitled to request copies of all tenancy agreements for the relevant properties for the preceding 12 months, the request upon which the claim is based was lawful.
Mr Goodger also complains that TCIT did not attempt to assist and support him to comply, rather they solely focused on investigating him and finding flaw. He says their ambit is, as well as to regulate, to offer support and guidance, particularly when a landlord or manager is demonstrably facing significant operational challenges.
Again, this is a question for MBIE in Mr Goodger’s complaint process with them. I do however discuss this further below as well, suffice to say it is a landlord’s obligation to ensure they comply with the Act.
Accordingly, I do not find it established in evidence that Mr Goodger’s right to natural justice has been breached.

Was the evidence obtained lawfully?

Mr Goodger raises concern that the investigator contacted tenants from their details he supplied which he says is a misuse of the information. This is a common practice for investigators and whether it is best practice or not is a question that can be answered in the alternative jurisdictions as it is not a question the Tribunal has jurisdiction over.
Section 133(1A) allows the Chief Executive to copy, inspect and take records of any document produced. Whether using the information to contact a tenant is in breach of this section is a question for an alternative jurisdiction.
I also note that there is no evidence that any tenant was compelled or coerced to speak with the investigators.
Further, there is specific statutory override in section 20 of the Privacy Act 2020 which allows actions authorised under the Act to supersede the Privacy Act. Accordingly, this issue is also one that can be addressed in Mr Goodger’s complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.
Mr Goodger also says TCIT sought information from QLDC which they were not entitled to and as such that information is inadmissible in these proceedings. He says their requests were only entitled to relate to specific tenancies or issues however here they were “broad, sweeping demands” which makes them unlawful.
TCIT were investigating, they were therefore entitled to discuss matters with an agency they were working with, QLDC. There is no evidence they did so outside of the Privacy Act/Official Information Act 1982. Again, their investigation procedures are questions for the respective internal complaints processes.
Finally, Mr Goodger submits that the complainant was coerced/pressured into pursuing the complaint. The complainant gave evidence to say she was not, which I accept.
Accordingly, it has not been established in evidence that any evidence obtained by TCIT was obtained unlawfully.

Did the investigators enter the properties lawfully?

Mr Goodger’s submission is that the investigators entered the properties without his knowledge or proper notice which makes the site visit unlawful and as such the evidence inadmissible. He says they were not entitled to enter upon the invitation of one occupant.
He also relies on section 123D of the Act which states that an authorised person may enter a premise if the inspection is permitted by the Tribunal and that person gives both the landlord and tenant at least 24 hours’ notice.
It is accepted that Mr Goodger did not receive prior notice of the visits, nor did the tenants. The evidence, as discussed below, is that investigators attended each site and sought the permission of the tenants to gain entry. This was within the right of each tenant.
This issue has been addressed clearly by the Tribunal in Chief Executive of Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment v Geyserland Limited [2022] NZTT Rotorua 4273958. The Tribunal noted: “62. It is clear that ss 123D and 123E are designed for use where an order is necessary to gain entry for the purpose of inspecting the premises, or to implement a programme of inspections. However, the power to apply to the Tribunal does not affect any other right of entry available to MBIE. Therefore, if the lawful occupant of the premises is willing to allow MBIE to enter and inspect the premises without an order, this is entirely permissible. 13
In each case, the tenant voluntarily invited MBIE to enter and view the state of their unit. Tenants are entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises during the tenancy (s 38(1) RTA) and they do not need the landlord’s consent for a non- invasive inspection of the premises. If this were not the case, and if MBIE was always required to obtain a Tribunal order before inspecting premises, this would hinder its role in monitoring compliance with the Act and investigating complaints.”
This finding of the Tribunal was upheld in the High Court. 14
Mr Goodger seeks to distinguish this case on the basis that the relevant properties are boarding houses. Therefore, one tenant allowing entry is essentially speaking for them all which he considers unjust.
I accept his point although just as a boarding house tenant is entitled to invite guests into the home, so too are they entitled to allow investigators into the house. There is no evidence that the investigators went into any private room 13 See section 123D(13) of the Act 14 Maqbool v Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment|[2024] NZHC 3292, see paragraphs 17-18. without the consent of the tenant who had lawful permission to occupy the room.
No evidence has been provided to me that demonstrates that the investigators entered a premise they had not been invited into. Whilst I understand Mr Goodger’s discontent as to how these site visits were undertaken, they do not appear to have been in breach of the Act. Is the Applicant’s evidence admissible?
As I have found above that it has not been established TCIT obtained evidence unlawfully, it has not been established that any evidence proffered by the Applicant is inadmissible.
The only caveat to that is the photos which were submitted as being of Unit 2 1084 Frankton Road which were actually of unit 3. These have been removed from evidence.

Were the proceedings brought lawfully?

The Applicant has brought proceedings pursuant to section 124A of the Act submitting that it was in the public interest to do so for the following reasons: a. It is alleged that the Respondents have committed serious breaches of the Act and persistently breached the Act. 15 b. It is alleged that the Respondents continue to breach the Act despite MBIE’s previous attempts to ensure compliance and these actions appear to be deliberate and intentional. c. It is alleged that the Respondents’ actions, in particular the failure to provide the requested documentation has significantly hindered TCIT’s investigation and has impacted on its ability to perform its statutory function to ensure compliance with the Act. d. It is alleged that the Respondents’ properties have significant health and safety risks 16 to tenants being overcrowded and retrofitted without consent to accommodate many tenants. e. The tenants are vulnerable being primarily migrant workers with little knowledge of the law in a climate of shortage of rental housing in Queenstown. 15 See section 124A(2)(b) of the Act 16 See section 124A(2)(a) of the Act f. It is alleged that the Respondents’ conduct risks undermining public confidence in the administration of the Act if it goes without redress. 17
Section 124A of the Act empowers the Chief Executive to initiate proceedings in specific circumstances, or on any other ground the chief executive considers appropriate. 18 It allows the bringing of proceedings even if the tenant in whose stead they are acting does not consent and if the tenancy has terminated. It is a wide provision. The tenant’s knowledge of, or consent to an application being filed on their behalf is not a relevant issue.
When proceedings are filed, it is for the Tribunal to determine whether any of the grounds upon which the proceedings are brought are substantiated in evidence.
There is no evidence to establish that the proceedings were brought unlawfully.
Accordingly, Mr Goodger’s challenges to the proceedings are dismissed. 19 Applicant’s claims Procedural matters
Procedurally I firstly note that MBIE must prove all elements of its claims to the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities.
Section 97(4) of the Act provides: ... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law.
A number of witnesses were called on behalf of the Applicant. These witnesses provided signed statements in advance. Where those parties gave oral evidence, the Tribunal relied on the content of those written statements as well as their oral evidence. Mr Goodger was advised of this at the commencement of the hearing and was able to cross examine the witnesses who gave oral evidence and make submissions and provide contradicting evidence to all evidence the Applicant provided.
Section 96(4) RTA provides: Except as expressly provided in this Act or in any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal may regulate its own procedure in such a manner as it thinks fit. 17 See section 124A(2)(c) of the Act 18 See section 124A(2)(d) of the Act 19 This decision was given orally on the first day of hearing after receiving submissions
This is subject to the overarching requirements of s 85 RTA. Section 85(1) provides: Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies.
I firstly discuss the evidence presented and then address the claims. I note that there is no dispute in the following: i. Mr Goodger is and was at the time the landlord of all subject tenancies as defined in the Act 20 for each property. ii. Each property has been run as a boarding house as defined in section 66B of the Act.
I commence by detailing the evidence of each witness. Investigator MacAulay’s evidence
Chris MacAulay is the lead investigator employed by TCIT. He attended the entire hearing and gave evidence at the commencement, end and as was required throughout the hearing.
Investigator MacAulay was also involved in Operation Phoenix. He conducted the October 2021 interview and provided the transcript. From that he notes: a. Mr Goodger attended with his lawyer, and it was noted she would discuss the legal aspects of his properties and procedures with him. b. Six 21 of the nine properties relevant to these proceedings were investigated in that operation. c. Mr Goodger said: “I had a lot of training on the ground and met a lot of people, and go to different landlord groups and Queenstown Chamber of Commerce and various things to keep a hand on what ... I also have got emails from the Tenancy things and I’ve read the Tenancy ... I’ve read the Tenancy Act and there’s many things that I’ve done that enabled me to be a reasonably good landlord... do a lot of reading online and, yeah, regarding Tenancy Services and the rules keep changing over the years. Obviously I’ve been a landlord for quite a number of years and the rules keep changing, and I keep trying to update to, as best I can. ” 22 20 Section 2 21 53 McBride St, 10 Perkins Rd, 48 Huff St (2) and 1084 Frankton Rd (2). 22 Page 6 d. Mr Goodger confirmed he had ensured all his homes were compliant with the HHS 23 and insulation requirements. 24 e. Mr Goodger confirmed 25 that every tenant recieved the HHS, insulation and insurance statements as well as the fire plan. f. When asked specifically whether he knew the statements had to form part of the tenancy agreement Mr Goodger said he did know. 26 g. When clearly told the agreements were non-complaint, 27 Mr Goodger said he would rectify them immediately. 28 h. He was intending to downsize his properties to house less than 6 tenants each as he understood was required. 29 i. He was told the lawful size of a bedroom and that some of the bedrooms in his properties did not comply. 30
Investigator MacAulay wrote the Warning Letter which specifically noted to Mr Goodger that TCIT considered he had not complied with the following sections of the Act: a. S66I(1)(c): compliance with enactments relating to health and safety, in particular the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (the Regulations) relating to the size of bedrooms, access to windows, prevention of overcrowding and unlawful bedrooms. b. S13A(2): the provision of insurance statements with tenancy agreements. c. S13A(1A)-(1C): the provision of insulation statements with tenancy agreements. d. S19: duties upon receipt of bond.
He gave evidence Mr Goodger was issued the Warning Letter, as opposed to further action, primarily because was working at the time with FENZ and QLDC to remedy deficiencies they had addressed.
His view is that in providing the Warning Letter (along with previous discussions) noting the relevant sections of the Act, they had provided Mr Goodger with the tools he required to address the deficiencies they identified in 23 45(1)(bb) of the Act requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 24 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 25 Page 8 26 Page 9 27 Page 9 and 10 28 Page 9 29 Page 38 30 Page 39 his practices. He says the level of information he gave was sufficient for other landlords to comply, so should have been enough for Mr Goodger.
When they received a complaint in 2023 a further investigation was initiated with QLDC and FENZ as previous areas of concern appeared to be still live.
Investigator McAuley coordinated all site visits and personally conducted the following site visits: i. 53 McBride Street on 2 August 2023. ii. 2 Johnson Place on 2 August 2023. iii. 28C Huff Street on 23 April 2024.
His evidence regarding 53 McBride Street is summarised 31 as follows: a. [Tenant 1] invited them into the premise. b. He observed a cleaning roster relating to the communal areas with lists of which tenants had cleaned which area and when. c. He observed a House Statement displayed and dated 2021. d. His observation was that the rooms had been altered by the construction of partitions and additional walls to those consented and some were smaller than the Building Act and the Regulations allow for. e. He took evidence from the tenants [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 3]. f. [Tenant 2]’s room measured 2.132m by 1.692m and had a sloping roof which made it hard to stand up in. g. Both tenants provided documentary and oral evidence of paying additional charges for electricity and cleaning over and above rent. h. Many doors had padlocks and/or padlock clasps. i. From interviews and observations, he believed up to 16 tenants were residing in the home in 9 bedrooms, a bus and two caravans. j. The consented plans for 53 McBride Street were for four bedrooms. k. He obtained and provided documentation from QLDC which shows Mr Goodger submitted proposed plans for renovations in 2015 however they were not completed.
He interviewed another former tenant of 53 McBride Street, [Tenant 4] who also confirmed: a. Her tenancy was between January 2023 and January 2024. b. She shared a room with four other girls. 31 Only with reference to the claims before the Tribunal c. She paid extra for cleaning and electricity. d. She received a copy of her tenancy agreement but no other documentation.
Investigator MacAulay’s evidence regarding 2 Johnson Place is summarised 32 as follows: a. [Tenant 5], an occupant of a campervan (there were two) parked on the property allowed them to enter the premise. b. He observed numbered bedroom doors, and one door had a padlock fitted. c. A House Statement was displayed. d. He observed building work that had partitioned the living room into two additional rooms. e. He took a statement from the tenant [Tenant 6]. f. From interviews and observations, he believed up to 12 tenants were residing in the home, sleepout and caravans.
His evidence regarding 28C Huff Street is that he spoke with tenant [Tenant 7] who lived in the caravan in the garden. He provided a copy of his tenancy agreement.
His evidence is that following all site visits TCIT established the following: i. The properties were all operating as boarding houses. ii. They were overcrowded and lacked social cohesion, with many tenants unsure of the number of occupants and their names. iii. Many had unconsented modifications with unauthorised changes of building use which had resulted in many very small bedrooms. iv. Egress was impeded in many properties by clasps and padlocks on doors and narrow doorways and hallways. v. Garages, sheds, basements, campervans, trucks and caravans were also being used to home tenants. vi. The tenants were mainly foreign migrants working in New Zealand on temporary visas and as such unaware of their rights. Accommodation for such workers being at a premium in Queenstown. vii. The tenancy agreements used to establish these tenancies were inadequate in terms of the statutory requirements.
Investigator McAuley’s evidence is that he advised Mr Goodger orally on 25 August 2023 that he would be sending him a notice requesting documents, 32 Only with reference to the claims before the Tribunal explained the reasoning for it and what documentation was required. He emailed the Notice on 28 August seeking production of the documents by 12 September.
No documents were received from Mr Goodger by 12 September. An extension was subsequently granted to 5 October. A further phone call was had on 20 September to discuss the request.
Mr Goodger subsequently raised concerns with the investigation and provided some documentation over the following month. Some redacted tenancy agreements were provided, but also lists of names. Generic documents were also provided such as generalised statements and a template agreement.
Further follow up from Investigator McAuley to Mr Goodger was met with refusal. In particular he provides the note of a phone conversation 33 in which Mr Goodger said: “I’m busy, don’t be ridiculous, this just seems so ridiculous. I don’t have time for this...why are you wasting every one’s time about this?...Why are you doing this? You are being difficult. I don’t have time, and may not have them anymore, I am very busy you know.”
From the documentation provided, Investigator McAuley established that Mr Goodger used one of the following documents to establish each tenancy, none of which he considered fully complied with the Act: a. The primary document named the Flatmate Room Agreement (the primary agreement). This was used for the majority of tenancies. b. A further document named Flat/house sharing agreement. Three instances of this document were in evidence. 34 c. Also used was a document headed Rentezi Room Agreement. There is one example of this agreement. 35
Investigator McAuley formally interviewed Mr Goodger on 23 April 2024 and provided the recording and transcript of the interview. The pertinent points from the Mr Goodger’s evidence at the interview he says are: a. He had been a landlord since 1994 and accepted he is familiar with his obligations under the Act. 36 b. His process is to take photos of the agreements when signed. The tenant takes the original and he uploads the copies to his system. c. He lost a number of agreements when his phone got wet in 2022. 33 22 January 2024. Exhibit 22, page 382 34 Exhibit 25, page 673, 679 35 Exhibit 16/3, page 231 36 Transcript of interview 1 d. He emails tenants the HHS statement, the insulation statement and the insurance statement along with the tenancy agreement. The statements are also displayed at the properties. e. Insulation statements are not reflective of the insulation in the properties but indicate the minimum requirements. f. A builder had erected dividers at 53 McBride St, but he could not recall who contracted the builder or if consent was obtained. g. He did not consider the Notice was a lawful request. h. A contribution of $8 per week is made by the tenants as part of their rent for electricity. If the cost exceeds that amount it is divided equally among the tenants.
He considered after this second interview that Mr Goodger was choosing not to comply with the Act because it did not suit him to do so.
Investigator MacAulay was the primary investigator to correspond with the complainant although he did not meet her until the hearing. He says he did not know her until she contacted their office and he provided no inducement to her for making the complaint.
He agrees that he did reference the possibility of obtaining compensation to some tenants he contacted however says it was not an inducement, merely reference to what could occur as a result of proceedings.
Investigator McAuley compiled the list of 128 tenants from the interviews at site visits and the documents Mr Goodger provided. He is confident that all people listed were tenants of the properties.
Investigator McAuley is of the view that Mr Goodger actively obstructed their investigations by failing to cooperate and failing to provide the required documents which impacted their ability to undertake their statutorily authorised function. Due to the nature and number of interactions he has had with Mr Goodger, he considers this was a deliberate obstruction to hinder the investigation.
Finally, he accepts that Investigator Leighton entered the wrong unit at 1084 Frankton Road and provided the wrong photos. This was a genuine error in the investigation he accepts. Investigator Heffernan’s evidence
Maria Heffernan is a TCIT investigator who visited 53 McBride St and 2 Johnson Place with Investigator MacAulay
She gave evidence 37 that entry was gained into both properties with the consent of tenants and the only rooms that were observed by investigators were those that the tenant was present for and gave them consent to view.
Investigator Heffernan’s evidence summarised as relevant regarding 53 McBride St is: a. She obtained a statement from tenants [Tenant 4], [Tenant 8], [Tenant 9], [Tenant 1], [Tenant 11] and [Tenant 12]. b. A bedroom downstairs had been partitioned using boards into three separate small sleeping areas. c. She observed the upstairs room on the left had been partitioned into four separate sleeping spaces by the use of curtains and blankets. On the right there were four separate living spaces, three of which appeared to have been made by wooden partitions that did not reach the roof and were very small. d. She observed latches and padlocks on some doors. e. It appeared [Tenant 1] was living in the garage, but he denied it. f. From her observations it appeared 12 or 13 tenants were residing in the home in what appeared to have originally been four bedrooms.
Investigator Heffernan’s evidence summarised as relevant regarding 2 Johnson Place is: a. Rooms 5 and 6 at 2 Johnson Place had been partitioned from the lounge by a wall that was erected part way through the window. b. She estimated 10 to 12 people resided at the premise in the house, two vans and a sleepout. c. She measured retrofitted rooms that were well less than 6sqm 38 in floor area 39 and doorways were narrow. d. She was told by [Tenant 5] there was a cleaning roster for communal areas.
Investigator Heffernan was also involved in Mr Goodger’s interview. 40 From that interview she understood Mr Goodger to be aware of his responsibilities under the Act. 37 Orally and by written statement 38 In breach of Regulation 8, Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 39 Room 5 measured 3.1x3.06m. Paragraph 41 of her statement. 40 On 23 April 2024 Investigator Hindle’s evidence
Mark Hindle is an investigator with TCIT who visited 48C and 48D Huff St in August 2023.
His evidence regarding 48C Huff St is summarised as follows: a. The property was accessed at the invitation of one tenant. b. The only rooms that were entered were done so at the invitation of a tenant. c. At least one tenant advised they were expected to pay “extra expenses” on top of their rent. d. At least one tenant 41 was unaware of the HHS status, insulation status and insurance status, and had not received any documents additional to the tenancy agreement. e. All tenants spoken to said that the tenants were responsible for cleaning the communal areas of the properties and there was no external cleaner. 42 f. Some rooms had been retrofitted, for example the living room had been partitioned off to make another bedroom. One big room had been partitioned into two, the access way of which was down a narrow hall with small doors. g. All bedrooms had padlocks on them. h. There were no signs displayed regarding house rules or statements. i. In consultation with FENZ and QLDC inspectors, it appeared as though the property could house up to 17 people including using the caravan and campervan. They understood the home had originally had three bedrooms. j. He took a statement from occupant [Occupant 1] who resided in the caravan, and tenant [Tenant 13]. [Occupant 1] estimated there were 12 tenants at the time.
Investigator Hindle’s evidence regarding 48D Huff St is summarised as follows: a. The property was accessed at the invitation of tenant [Tenant 14] who showed investigators her tenancy agreement which consisted of two half pages. 43 b. The only rooms that were entered were done so at the invitation of a tenant. 41 [Tenant 13], Exhibit 24 page 525 42 See for example the interview form of [Occupant 1], Exhibit 24 page 537 43 Interview statement Exhibit 24 c. There did not seem to be any HHS, insulation nor insurance statements displayed. Nor house rules. d. It appeared that 6 people resided at the address. e. At least one bedroom appeared to have been retrofitted from the original plans. f. All bedrooms had padlocks. Investigator Gosney’s evidence
Mandie Gosney is an investigator employed by TCIT and gave evidence regarding her visits to 1017 and 1084 Frankton Road on 2 and 3 August 2024.
Investigator Gosney’s evidence regarding 1017 Frankton Road is summarised as follows: a. The property was accessed at the invitation of one tenant. 44 b. The only rooms that were entered were done so at the invitation of a tenant. c. Four tenants were interviewed over two days at this property: [Tenant 15] 45 who lived in the basement, [Tenant 16] 46 who resided there with her child, [Tenant 17] 47 and [Tenant 18]. 48 d. At least one tenant said he did not receive a tenancy agreement. e. None of the tenants were aware of any HHS, insulation or insurance information regarding these properties. f. None of the tenants said they received any other statements with their tenancy agreement. g. There were some generalised statements taped to the side of the upstairs fridge. h. All four tenants advised that the cleaning in the communal areas was a joint tenant responsibility. i. Two rooms had padlocks. j. There was a considerable amount of mould in this property. 44 [Tenant 16] 45 Page 586 46 Page 574 47 Page 561 48 Page 597 k. Some bedrooms were under 6sqm and appeared to be original rooms divided. Bedroom 5 had two beds, one of which went into the wardrobe. In some rooms there was not enough space to walk around the bed. l. They estimated the property was tenanted by at least 10 people in the house, caravan, basement and sleepout.
Investigator Gosney’s evidence regarding 1084 Frankton Road is summarised as follows: a. They visited units 1 and 2 as the only two of the four owned by the Respondent. b. She interviewed tenant [Tenant 19] 49 who resided in the caravan outside with another adult and a child, and who invited them into the property. c. Unit 1 had three bedrooms and it appeared approximately 10 people were residing there (including in the caravan). [Tenant 20] said 6 people shared the communal facilities. d. House rules were displayed but no other statements. It was stated the landlord was entitled to evict a tenant on 24 hours’ notice for 10 days overdue rent. e. There was an apparent lack of maintenance 50 and evidence of overcrowding. 51 Investigator O’Keefe’s evidence
Vanessa O’Keefe is employed as an investigator with TCIT. She gave evidence of visiting 2 Johnson Place and 10 Perkins Road on 2 August 2024.
Investigator O’Keefe’s evidence regarding 2 Johnson Place is summarised as follows: a. She took and provided photos that she obtained with the consent of tenant [Tenant 6]. b. She estimated at least 9 or 10 people resided at the home. c. House Rules, a Fire Plan and incomplete House Statements dated 2021 were displayed. Notes stated that tenants would be charged for extra power usage and cleaning. 52 49 Page 620 50 Boarded up broken window and water damage 51 An oven and freezer on the veranda 52 Page 120 d. Bedrooms appeared to have been constructed in the living room with a wall partition going to the middle of the window. Some doors had padlocks or latches for a padlock. e. She spoke to tenants [Tenant 21] and [Tenant 5] who were occupying a van in the garden. They provided their tenancy agreement 53 which did not have any statements attached to it. f. She was told people were also living in the second van in the garden.
Investigator O’Keefe’s evidence regarding 10 Perkins Road is summarised as follows: a. A notice regarding fire and insurance information was displayed outside the front door. b. They spoke to tenant [Tenant 22] 54 who advised he resided in the caravan in the garden. He said he was charged extra if power usage was “too high”. c. They spoke with other tenants [Tenant 23], 55 [Tenant 24] and [Tenant 25]. 56 [Tenant 25] resided in the second caravan. d. She observed partitions in rooms creating small living spaces. [Tenant 24]’s “room” appeared to be a closet space and measured 2.1 x 1.3 m2. e. Some bedroom doors had padlocks or padlock latches. f. There was a House Statement displayed that referenced insulation and “additional heating & moisture control” 57 but did not detail all of the specifications of the house. g. There was also displayed a notice regarding cleaning tasks and extra charges for power. h. She understands between 11 and 13 people reside there. [Tenant 25]’s evidence
[Tenant 25] is the complainant and gave evidence orally and by written statement. 58
She resided at 48 Huff Street from 2018 until 2020. She lived at 53 McBride Street between November 2022 and March 2023. Her evidence is that she 53 Photo page 166 54 Exhibit 27 55 Statement page 489 56 Page 252 57 Page 724 58 Page 479 chose to live at both places because at the relevant times, there was very little alternative.
Her recollection is that the maximum number of people living at 48 Huff Street while she was there was 21. Tenants occupied two caravans. Her room appeared to have been partitioned off from an original room and given a new small entrance.
The rooms were either larger rooms with multiple beds or rooms divided by partitions. The house felt overcrowded and there was not much time for showers or cooking. There were rats, excessive mould and no ability to lock rooms.
Most of the tenants at both properties were overseas nationals in New Zealand on temporary visas. She says she knew little about New Zealand tenancy law and from her discussions with other tenants nor did they.
Specifically regarding 53 McBride Street, [Tenant 25]’s evidence is (summarised): a. Her room was in a small, partitioned space next to two other similar spaces. There was no window, and the partition did not reach the roof. b. She signed a Flatmates Room Agreement and was provided with the original. She was not given any other documents regarding the premise. She paid $150 bond which was not recorded on the agreement. c. She was not aware of the insulation status of the house or whether it met any particular regulations or standards. There were signs displayed on the wall, but Mr Goodger had not shown her them nor had he explained them. d. There were approximately 18 tenants and [Tenant 1] lived in the garage. Tenants lived in a bus and a caravan parked in the garden. The house felt overcrowded with one kitchen and two bathrooms only. e. Tenants were responsible for cleaning the common area and received extra charges if they did not. She did not pay her charges as she had done her cleaning, but she is aware of other tenants who did. The communal areas were continually dirty. f. At times she received emails regarding her rent arrears. One statement on the email said: 59 We write to advise you that should we not receive payment TODAY, or the reason why payment should not be made, you must deliver up possession and vacate the premises, without further notice... 59 Evidence of an email dated 23 February 2023 was provided BE ADVISED that if an overseas tenant leaves with bad circumstances their rent arrears will be reported to Immigration New Zealand g. If electricity bills exceeded the equivalent of $8 per person, they were required to split the remainer of the bill equally between them.
[Tenant 25]’s evidence is that she made the complaint because she was in contact with people remaining in the property after she vacated, and she was worried about them. She felt the wrong thing was occurring and when she had obtained her residency status, she felt more confident to make a complaint.
She says she was aware of the HHS after she had done some research and understood the house to be non-compliant. It was her she says who raised this issue with the investigators not the other way around. She says she raised all the concerns noted in her statement and they were not suggested to her by the investigators. At no point did she feel compelled by TCIT to make a complaint or give evidence. Mr Bridle’s evidence
Mathew Bridle is employed as the Principle Building Advisor at QLDC. His role is to lead and direct all technical and compliance standards of the Building Services Department to ensure QLDC is fully compliant with legislation, guidelines and policies. He also provides technical advice when required in relation to the Building Act 2004 (the Building Act).
He explains that QLDC was invited by TCIT to be a part of Operation Flywheel as they had been in Operation Phoenix. Their role in the operation was to ascertain whether the relevant properties were operating as per their original or consented purpose, and whether they were compliant with the Building Act, Building Code and Resource Management Act 1991.
Buildings he explains are consented for a particular purpose and if that purpose changes an owner can apply for change of use permission. Residential standalone homes are called detached dwellings, boarding houses or hostels are buildings providing a community service/accommodation. Different uses have different requirements particularly in relation to fire escape, sanitary facilities, ventilation and light, in particular accommodation providers have a higher level of care.
It is the QLDC’s role to determine the use of the building and whether there has been a change of use. Council officers then decide whether a further building consent is needed, or whether certain changes are needed at the property in order to bring it up to Code of Compliance.
Mr Bridle’s evidence is that on 2 and 3 August 2023 members of the QLDC Monitoring and Enforcement Staff attended the site visits. Following the visits QLDC Building Control staff considered that the Respondent had breached section 114 of the Building Act which requires owners to give notice of change of use at the following properties: a. 53 McBride Street. b. 48 Huff Street. c. 2 Johnson Place. d. 10 Perkins Street.
Regarding 53 McBride Street Mr Bridle’s evidence is: a. It was permitted for use as a private/detached dwelling. b. The property was designed and built with 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. c. It appeared to home 16 people at the time of the site visit. d. Observations indicated the home was being used for a community service (accommodation). e. The change of use had not been notified to the QLDC in breach of s114(2)(a) of the Building Act. f. This also meant the property was non-compliant with section 115(b)(i)(A) of the Building Act which requires compliance with the building code in respect of means of escape from fire and fire rating performance.
Regarding 48 Huff Street his evidence is: a. It was consented for residential use. b. The property was designed and built with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. c. The property now has 8 bedrooms housing between 12 and 17 occupants. d. Observations indicated the home was being used for a community service (accommodation). e. The change of use had not been notified to the QLDC in breach of s114(2)(a) of the Building Act f. This also meant the property was non-compliant with section 115(b)(i)(A) of the Building Act which requires compliance with the building code in respect of means of escape from fire and fire rating performance.
Regarding 2 Johnson Place his evidence is: a. It appears to have been intended for residential use. b. The building layout shows that when built it was intended to have 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. c. The building now has 6 bedrooms plus 2 additional bedrooms in the stand- alone garage. d. Observations indicated the home was being used for a community service (accommodation). e. The change of use had not been notified to the QLDC in breach of s114(2)(a) of the Building Act. f. This also meant the property was non-compliant with section 115(b)(i)(A) of the Building Act which requires compliance with the building code in respect of means of escape from fire and fire rating performance.
Regarding 10 Perkins Street his evidence is: a. It was consented for residential use. b. The property was designed and built with 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. c. It now has 5 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. d. Observations indicated the home was being used for a community service (accommodation). e. The change of use had not been notified to the QLDC in breach of s114(2)(a) of the Building Act f. This also meant the property was non-compliant with section 115(b)(i)(A) of the Building Act which requires compliance with the building code in respect of means of escape from fire and fire rating performance.
As a result, on 7 March 2024 the Respondents were issued with Notices to Fix in respect of the identified breaches of the Building Act in the four properties. The breaches were required to be remedied by 10 April 2024.
The QLDC undertook a follow up inspection on 17 September 2024 which established that the properties were still being used as boarding houses. The occupancy appeared to remain as it was at the previous inspection in August 2023.
They did however note that padlocks had been removed and a fire escape plan with the assistance of FENZ had been completed.
Notices to Fix Mr Bridle explains are to ensure compliance with the legislation and to ensure the safety of occupants. There were other issues the QLDC identified with the properties however they have not taken action regarding those.
Mr Bridle’s evidence is that Mr Goodger has not complied with any of the Notices to Fix issued to him and they are currently suspended. Mr Goodger had advised that he had reverted their use to single use household dwellings as they were originally consented for, however QLDC are not satisfied he has because the occupancy numbers remain high.
This decision to suspend the notices has not been made he says because they accept the assertion that the single use has been reverted to, but rather because prosecution is untenable/unaffordable for the QLDC at this time.
Mr Bridle’s evidence is that the QLDC had considered prosecting Mr Goodger however, given the lack of clarity in the Building Act over the definition of a boarding house and the lack of resources and funds available to the QLDC it is unlikely QLDC will be able to pursue a prosecution. This is despite his view that Mr Goodger is still breaching the Building Act.
Mr Bridle is confident that after Operation Phoenix Mr Goodger was clearly advised that his properties were not being used as consented and what was required to rectify his lack of compliance. He had assured the QLDC that padlocks would be removed from his bedrooms after Operation Phoenix however many were still in place in Operation Flywheel, as were unlawful room partitions.
Mr Bridle notes that Mr Goodger has not sought assistance from the QLDC at any time to ensure his compliance nor had he appeared to have attempted to educate himself despite Operation Phoenix.
He confirms that they have not acted in collusion with TCIT or any other department. [Tenant 2]’s statement
[Tenant 2] was interviewed by Investigator MacAuley and provided a written statement. 60 He was not able to attend the hearing to be cross examined on his statement. Accordingly, whilst I accept the statement and interview form as evidence pursuant to section 96(4) of the Act, I do not accord it as much weight as the evidence of other witnesses.
[Tenant 2] lived at 23 McBride St from March 2023 until late 2023. This was his first tenancy in New Zealand, and he was not aware of his rights.
He accepted the tenancy because he had no other choice at the time.
He was given a short tenancy agreement by Mr Goodger that was not explained to him. The tenancy agreement did not contain any information about insulation, insurance or HHS and he was not provided with any document that did. He was not aware of the legal requirements.
His room was a very small one that had been partitioned off on the upper story. The partition did not reach the ceiling so people could look in. It had a padlock. 60 Dated 23 August 2024
He was required to pay additional costs for cleaning and electricity if it exceeded a certain amount, 61 both of which he paid. Mr Goodger’s evidence
Mr Goodger accepted that at the time of the investigation all properties were being operated in a way that met the definition 62 of a boarding house.
Mr Goodger says he has been working with FENZ and QLDC to ensure the compliance of the properties and has made good progress. He believes his houses have always been safe and cohesive.
He wants to ensure all his properties are fully compliant with the law, but says it is difficult if no one tells him how. He says he has had no assistance or guidance from TCIT which he understands to be a part of their job.
The reason he has not achieved full compliance over the last few years he says is for a variety of reasons including COVID, the fire in 2020, increasing complexity in regulation, having to move houses regularly and family pressures.
Mr Goodger does not consider that the majority of his tenants are vulnerable. He agrees some may be but says that because they are mainly in their late 20s, early 30s, have navigated the New Zealand immigration system successfully, and are working, they are competent people. He gave them links to the Tenancy Services website on some agreements so they could all access their rights at any time.
He considers tenants felt compelled to allow investigators entry and considers the way in which the site visits were undertaken would have been intimidating to them to the extent that they may not have been able to answer questions correctly. Failure to comply with notice to produce
His explanation for the failure to provide all tenancy agreements is that many were lost due to his phone getting wet in 2022 and a hacker disrupting his computer services in 2023. 63 Accordingly, he did not have all the required agreements to provide.
He says he initially redacted the full agreements when demanded as he considered it to be a breach of his tenants’ privacy. When he was advised he was lawfully required to do so he provided all the information that he had. He was naturally suspicious he says given his involvement with TCIT in 2019/2020 when his complaints had been upheld by MBIE. 61 He provided documentary evidence of this also 62 Pursuant to section 66B of the Act 63 Well after the Notice
He did not intend to disrupt the investigation, he just wanted to protect his tenants’ right to privacy and did not understand TCIT’s jurisdiction to make the wide-ranging requests they did.
The effect of his actions was that all the information required did get conveyed to the best of his ability. Tenancy agreements
He says the boarding house agreement template on the Tenancy Services website does not meet his requirements as the accommodation needs of Queenstown tenants are unique. He says his tenancy agreements are intentionally short, but the “detailed” information is emailed to the tenants and is in signs at the premises. The reason the agreements are short is to be convenient for his tenants given the nature of their stays as they are short term, and they are travelling.
He says he has recently brought on an employee to help him improve his rental systems. His evidence is he did previously have someone assist him with these processes, but they resigned as a result of the investigations.
He is remorseful for inaccuracies in tenancy agreements and willing to address deficiencies. He says that alongside the documents he gives tenants he also explains to them that the situation is not as strict as the wording may indicate. He says he has a great relationship with tenants and supports them as much as possible such as by buying them extra things they need like lamps. Therefore, whilst some clauses in the agreements may be inaccurate, he does not enforce them.
In direct response to particular clauses he notes: a. The cleaning references was to encourage general tidiness and a community spirit within the homes. b. The time intention was to ensure tenants did not use the homes like Airbnb’s and stayed as long as possible, but it was just an intention and he told them orally they could give notice to leave at any time. c. The electricity charges were to be fair and to keep the overall rental charge down. d. The liability clause was in response to the fire and some tenants destroying his property. e. He meant jointly or severally liable, he did not mean to make tenants liable for another’s actions. f. He never intended to enforce these provisions.
At one point in the evidence he said all tenancy agreements have been corrected, at another he said he was working on it. At another point he said his colleague was working on them during the hearing. In the final days of the hearing he explained his “new process” 64 is having tenants sign a short form agreement which he says he follows up with the full agreement by email.
When it was pointed out to him that this meant that tenants were not receiving full disclosure prior to entering into a contract, he said he would change his process yet again, this time dispensing with the short form agreements.
He accepts he has made mistakes and is willing to address them. He apologises for the delay but says it has been a massive overhaul of his system and he has never received help from TCIT to ensure compliance. He is in constant contact with his tenants his says to ensure they are clear on their rights. Statements
Mr Goodger says he displayed HHS, Insulation and Insurance Statements on the walls in all properties. He accepts at the time of the inspections they were dated but says he has updated them now. He agrees they were not necessarily house specific.
He says he showed prospective tenants the signs when they viewed the rooms therefore, he says, they were advised of the property’s status prior to agreeing to the tenancy. He explains that by stating the insulation requirement he is confirming the home complies.
He says he sent out bulk emails with the required statements in 2021, June 2023 and October 2023. He thinks the statements got to “most” tenants. Locks
The reason padlocks were on doors he says is because ‘five years ago’ locks were not needed on any rooms as Queenstown was a safe place. The padlocks have been installed over the years so tenants can lock their rooms when they go out, in response to increasing distrust. He also says many were installed by tenants themselves.
At an early stage in the hearing he said all doors then had proper locks but at another point, that he was still working on making that happen. He says he became aware of the law ‘changing’ regarding padlocks on doors prior to Operation Phoenix and so created his own type of lock that could release a padlock from inside a room should a tenant get locked in by another. Change of use
Mr Goodger says he uses the properties as he does because they are all large and there is a high demand for worker accommodation in Queenstown, so it makes sense. He says the QLDC is not addressing the accommodation 64 As developed in the preceding week shortage and so he does. The reason for the partitioning of rooms generally he says was due to COVID times.
Mr Goodger’s evidence regarding the room allocations at 53 McBride St is: a. The upstairs cubicles were made by a tenant during covid times and were lawful because the partitions did not reach the ceiling. b. He has now removed partitions to ensure that all have correctly sized doorways and access to windows. c. The number of tenants is now 13, including [Tenant 1] who remains in the garage. d. Tenants remain in the bus and caravan. e. There are no more padlocks on doors. f. He considers the property is now compliant with QLDC’s requirements although agrees there are more than 6 tenants.
Mr Goodger could not recall who erected the wall creating two new bedrooms from the living space at 2 Johnson Place, or when they were built. He says he has now removed the padlocks on all doors.
Mr Goodger sent an email to QLDC on 12 March 2023 stating that he did not intend to apply for a change of use consent but that he intended to use the properties as they were consented: for single use. In evidence he said he was not aware what he was meaning when he sent this, he was just trying to comply.
He subsequently said he wished to apply for change of use so that he can continue to rent the properties out with occupancy of over 6 people. He did however think that there would be no point as the QLDC would not assess his application fairly. He considers that QLDC has colluded with MBIE to persecute him specifically.
Mr Goodger then said he will reduce the numbers of tenants to 6 if required by QLDC prosecution or by natural attrition. He says the QLDC have never raised the issue before and are only doing so now because of Investigator MacAulay’s investigation.
He says he has been punished by the QLDC placing the Notices to Fix on hold as this means he is restricted in dealing with the properties.
In summary Mr Goodger considers he is providing appropriate accommodation to address the housing crisis in Queenstown. He sees himself as meeting a need that the QLDC would not. As such he considers the laws inappropriate to his work.
He points out that in 30 years he has only had the one complaint from a tenant (the complainant) and none from neighbours or the QLDC. The only real complainant has been Investigator MacAulay who he says has a vendetta against him. He says he lives in fear and depression as to what Investigator MacAulay may do next. The Law – discussion and findings
The first question is which tenancies have been established in evidence by the Applicant.
As discussed above, s133 of the Act allows TCIT to request copies of all tenancy agreements relating to a relevant property that were current or ended in the 12 months prior to the request. Although the Notice was unclear (discussed below) this means that TCIT could request tenancy agreements for any tenancy that occurred or ended in the 12 months prior to the Notice.
Further, section 124B(1) of the Act limits the Chief Executive to bringing proceedings within 12 months after becoming aware of the matter underlying the application. So it must be that if any tenancy ended more than 12 months before the Chief Executive knew of the tenancy, and thereby the alleged breach of the Act relating to that tenancy, the breach is outside of the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
Therefore, the Chief Executive can only bring claims regarding tenancies that occurred or ended during the relevant period being the 12 months prior to the Notice being issued (28 August 2022- 28 August 2023).
Mr Goodger challenges a number of the 128 tenancies alleged by the Applicant, and I discuss them in turn below.
Mr Goodger has two arguments against the tenancies: i. Some tenancies occurred for less than 28 days therefore should not come within the jurisdiction of the Act. ii. Some tenancies ended prior to the relevant period.
As discussed at the hearing, if a tenancy is entered into with the intention that it was to last for at least 28 days, and it meets all the other requirements of a boarding house tenancy, it is such a tenancy even if it does not in fact last 28 days. The relevant section is as follows.
Mr Goodger accepts that he does not have evidence to establish that he entered into a specific agreement with any of the subject tenants for a period of less than 28 days. His agreements are open ended to allow for whatever period the tenant wishes to remain for.
Accordingly, the fact that some tenancies ended after less than 28 days does not change their classification as boarding house tenancies and as such subject to the Act.
Mr Goodger’s second argument relates to some tenancies that he says ended before the relevant period. This has occurred because in response to the Notice Mr Goodger provided the tenancy agreements and/or names and contact details for some tenants that resided in the properties earlier than the relevant period. He says he did so because he was flustered and intimidated by the request and just provided all the tenancy agreements he could find. He was not sure what the relevant period was or even exactly what was being asked of him. He does not have specific evidence as to when these tenancies ended.
Mr Miller submits that given the agreements/details were provided in response to the Notice, which was a specific request for tenancies in the relevant period, TCIT were entitled to accept that they were relevant tenancies. They have proceeded on the basis they were because essentially that is what they were told by Mr Goodger in his provision of the agreements/information. He submits it is more likely than not that they did occur in the relevant period.
Mr Miller also notes that at times Mr Goodger provided inconsistent evidence on the point. For example, he said [Tenant 26] only resided for two weeks and yet his agreement was signed 7 February 2021 and the payments Mr Goodger provided evidence of continued until April.
Mr Miller further highlights the unreliability of Mr Goodger’s evidence being that he has provided alleged extracts from his own accounts rather than verified bank information. The accounts are also incomplete as Mr Goodger himself accepts he took cash payments at times.
Mr Goodger was provided with time during the hearing to establish in evidence that the alleged tenancies had ended prior to the relevant period. He did so and that evidence has been considered in the formation of these decisions.
As discussed, I am tasked with determining on the basis of the relevant standard of proof – the balance of probabilities, whether the contested tenancies do come within the jurisdiction of these proceedings. I now consider each contested tenancy. Contested tenancies
[Occupant 1] is an alleged tenant at 48C Huff St. She was interviewed by Investigator Hindle 65 as an identified occupant of the caravan. She also completed an interview form. 66
[Occupant 1] was able to identify facts about the tenancy but said her boyfriend had arranged it and he had the tenancy agreement. Mr Goodger could find no record of her in his emails or bank statements. His submission is that her boyfriend must have been the tenant given his lack of records relating to her.
Having considered the evidence available to me I do not find it established that [Occupant 1] was a tenant of the Respondents. I find it more likely than not that she was the partner of a tenant. Her partner’s name is unknown, therefore is likely another tenant listed. Accordingly, I dismiss the claims relating to [Occupant 1].
The following are the tenants Mr Goodger submits ended their tenancies prior to the relevant period: i. [Tenant 27]. His tenancy 67 commenced on 1/11/2021 as evidenced by his produced tenancy agreement 68 and the tenant list 69 Mr Goodger provided. Mr Goodger found payments by him in his accounts between 1 November 2021 and 5 January 2022 only. Whilst I accept the difficulties with the evidence Mr Goodger has provided being only alleged extracts from his accounts, I consider his evidence genuine. As such I find it more likely than not that [Tenant 27] had ended his tenancy prior to the relevant period which commenced some 8 months after his last evidenced payment. The majority of these tenancies are relatively short term, and it is nonsensical a tenant would change to paying in cash after previously paying by bank transfer. 65 Paragraph 18, statement of Investigator Hindle 66 Exhibit 24 page 537 67 At 53 McBride St 68 Exhibit 16/02 – Pg 209, 212 69 Page 380 ii. [Tenant 26]. 70 His tenancy commenced on 7/02/2022 as evidenced by produced agreement. 71 Mr Goodger could only find payments made by him between 2 February and 13 April 2022. For the same reasons discussed above, I find it more likely than not that [Tenant 26] ended his tenancy prior to the relevant period. iii. [Tenant 28]. 72 His tenancy commenced on 5/02/2022 as evidenced by produced agreement. 73 Mr Goodger could not find any payments made by him which he says means either he stayed a brief time and paid in cash, or he did not move in which was common. For the same reasons discussed above, I find it more likely than not that [Tenant 28] did not have a tenancy in the relevant period. iv. [Tenant 29] 74 commenced a tenancy on 17/01/2022 as evidenced by produced agreement. 75 Mr Goodger found relevant payments for her between 18 January and 22 April with the last payment being for less than the full week. For the same reasons discussed above, I find it more likely than not that [Tenant 29]’s tenancy ended prior to the relevant period. v. [Tenant 30] 76 commenced a tenancy on 26/01/2022 as evidenced by agreement. 77 Mr Goodger only found two weeks of rental payments in his accounts for [Tenant 30]. For the same reasons discussed above, I find it more likely than not that [Tenant 30]’s tenancy ended prior to the relevant period. vi. [Occupant 2] commenced his tenancy 78 on 18/02/2022 as evidenced by agreement. 79 Mr Goodger only found evidence of one payment on 27 February 2022. As above I find it more likely than not that [Occupant 2] did not have a tenancy during the relevant period. vii. [Tenant 31] resided at 10 Perkins Road as evidenced by an undated tenancy agreement. 80 Mr Goodger found rental payments for [Tenant 31] between 19 November 2019 and 17 May 2020. 70 At 48D Huff St 71 Exhibit 21, Pg 375 72 At 48D Huff St 73 Exhibit 16/03, Pg 242 74 At 48C Huff St 75 Exhibit 16/03, Pg 227, 233 76 At 48C Huff St 77 Exhibit 16/03, Pg 230 78 At 53 McBride St 79 Exhibit 16/02, Pg 207, 209 80 Exhibit 16/04, Pg 254 For the same reasons as above, I find it most likely that [Tenant 31] had vacated prior to the relevant period. viii. [Tenant 32]’s tenancy 81 commenced on 15/02/2022 as evidenced by agreement. 82 Mr Goodger found no payments for this alleged tenancy, as such I do not find it established in evidence.
Accordingly, I dismiss the claims regarding the alleged above nine tenancies as I do not find them proven in evidence.
Whilst I accept the difficulties with the evidence Mr Goodger has provided, I have erred on the side of accepting his evidence. I consider his searches were genuine as they were directed by me and made immediately after the hearing day. I do accept his bookwork was likely incomplete however consider it just 83 to take this approach.
Further, the only evidence establishing the tenancies were the agreements/lists provided initially by Mr Goodger to Investigator MacAuley, and TCIT had no other supporting evidence. I accept Mr Goodger’s evidence that he was overwhelmed and therefore provided agreements that were not necessarily from the relevant period.
Claims against the following tenancies were withdrawn by the Applicant at the hearing: a. [Tenant 33] at 10 Perkins Road. b. [Tenant 34] at 1017 Frankton Road.
I therefore consider claims relating to 117 tenancies, specifically: i. 53 McBride Street: 27 tenancies. ii. 48C Huff Street: 15 tenancies. iii. 48D Huff Street: 15 tenancies. iv. 10 Perkins Road: 16 tenancies. v. 2 Johnson Place: 9 tenancies. vi. 1017 Frankton Road. 19 tenancies. vii. 1/1084 Frankton Road. 3 tenancies. viii. 2/1084 Frankton Road. 13 tenancies.
Appendix A to this decision lists the tenancies that have been established in evidence or agreed to have occurred or ended during the relevant period.
I turn now to address each claim. 81 At 1017 Frankton Road 82 EXH 16/06, Pg 285 83 See section 85 of the RTA Has the Respondent breached section 66I of the Act by failing to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises, in particular the Building Act, with 73 tenancies at 4 properties?
I accept the evidence of Mr Bridle fully and as such find that Mr Goodger has been utilising 53 McBride Street, 48 Huff Street, 2 Johnson Place and 10 Perkins Street as boarding houses, or what the QLDC classify a community service use/accommodation, not as residential homes.
He did not advise the QLDC of this change of use 84 and did not seek consent to operate the boarding houses as he has.
Specifically, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there has been a change of use by the Respondent from Detached Dwelling/Single Household Unit to Community Service/Sleeping Accommodation of the following properties and during the following tenancies: i. 53 McBride Street: 27 tenancies. ii. 48C Huff Street: 15 tenancies. iii. 10 Perkins Road: 16 tenancies. iv. 2 Johnson Place: 9 tenancies. v. 67 tenancies in total.
This is in breach of section 114(2)(a) of the Building Act 2004 which is a breach of s66I(1)(c) of the Act which requires landlords to ensure their residential tenancy properties comply with all enactments regarding buildings, health and safety. This is an unlawful act pursuant to section 66I(4) of the Act.
Mr Goodger says he “missed the change of laws” which would require him to reapply for “an existing use that had been in place for many years”. 85 He does not understand why the QLDC are only raising this as an issue now given how long he has been operating in this way. He later accepted in evidence that the law may not have changed but considers he was only advised recently.
There has not been a change in law in over 20 years. Mr Goodger appears to have been operating these properties unlawfully for a number of years. A status I consider he has been aware of.
I come to this finding because of the following which indicates he was notified of this requirement many years prior to this investigation: 84 From the originally consented use 85 P8 transcript a. The warning letter of 21 April 2020 86 references the building code and a landlord’s obligation under section 45(1)(c) of the Act to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment. The reference was obscure however and did not specifically refer to the requirement to obtain permission to change the use of a premise. b. The requirement to notify of a change of use was specifically discussed regarding each property in the interview Mr Goodger attended with his lawyer in October 2021. Investigator MacAulay was not especially clear on the steps Mr Goodger would need to take to ensure the properties were consented for current use however Mr Goodger’s lawyer was also present, and Investigator MacAulay says he relied on her to discuss the legal requirements with Mr Goodger after the subject had been raised. c. The warning letter of 15 March 2022 specifically references “unlawful bedrooms” and the relevant Regulations which relate to bedroom size, windows and overcrowding. It also recommends that Mr Goodger ensures all properties are appropriately consented for the manner in which they are currently being used. d. When working with QLDC during and as a result of Operation Phoenix Mr Bridle says Mr Goodger was given oral advice.
Mr Goodger continually asserted that he could not recall who erected the partition walls in his properties and when. I do not accept this. The building work was substantial therefore he more likely than not provided his consent when it was done and likely paid for the work.
He also explained many partitions away with the reason of COVID segregation. When asked why he had partitions in his Hamilton Road property predating COVID times, he said this wasn’t a cubical (although he had used that word in describing it) but a fully built room. The last COVID lockdown was in August 2021, therefore this has not been a valid justification for many years.
Mr Goodger’s lack of recall does not assist his credibility.
Specifically, his alleged inability to recall when he had made alterations to his properties satisfies me that the conversions to the properties without QLDC notification were undertaken during his period of ownership. That he was aware of the difference under the Building Act between a partition that does not reach the ceiling and a wall that does, 87 indicates to me that he has been aware of the Building Act/Code requirements for a number of years. 86 Relating to 6/27 Hamilton Road only 87 He discussed this in oral evidence and says these partitions were erected in approximately 2020
The evidence establishes that there were padlocks fitted on a number of bedroom doors. This is in contrast to Mr Goodger’s evidence where he asserted he was “quite proactive” in having the padlocks removed after Operation Phoenix 88 when he was specifically directed to remove them. They have now been removed but it has taken him several years.
Further, he gave initial evidence that [Tenant 1] did not live in the garage at 53 McBride Street in contrast to the investigator’s observations and [Tenant 25]’s evidence. I prefer [Tenant 25]’s evidence as she lived with [Tenant 1]. I find that Mr Goodger had reason not to be accurate here as he was aware it is unlawful to be using a garage as a residential tenancy premise.
Mr Goodger advised the QLDC 89 that he had reverted the properties to single- use homes. This is clearly not the case as he continues to run them as boarding houses with more than 6 tenants. The tenants did not know each other until they moved in together and they all contract separately and independently with Mr Goodger.
I do not accept his stated intention to make further changes either. He appears to consider the laws are wrong or should not apply to his properties because he is meeting a specific need. He leaves it to the QLDC prosecuting him to force him to take further action.
Given the steps Mr Goodger has taken already, it would seem the logical step for him would be to apply for retrospective permission to change the use of the properties. That would ensure the properties are compliant with the Building Act and as such are safe, healthy homes for his tenants.
It is certainly a heavily regulated environment in which Mr Goodger chooses to operate, however that is for good reason. If he elects to run such a business, Mr Goodger must operate lawfully, or not at all.
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent has breached s66I (1)(c) of the Act by breaching the Building Act with respect to all four properties, and still is. This is an unlawful act which I have found to have been intentionally committed. I discuss exemplary damages below. Has the Respondent breached the Act with respect to tenancy agreements for 128 tenancies?
The Applicant contends the Respondent has breached the Act in respect of all tenancies by: 88 P115 transcript 89 By email 12 March 2025 a. failing to include compliant insurance statements in tenancy agreements in breach of section 13A(2) of the Act. b. failing to include compliant insulation statements in tenancy agreements in breach of section 13A(1A) of the Act. c. failing to include compliant HHS statements in tenancy agreements in breach of section 13A(1CA) of the Act. d. failing to include the minimum mandatory information required in tenancy agreements by section 13A(1) of the Act. e. failing to include the minimum mandatory information required in boarding house agreements by section 66C of the Act. The law in relation to tenancy agreements
Section 13A of the Act details the information that must be included in every residential tenancy agreement. Specifically in relation to these agreements: a. The full name and contact address of the landlord as required by s 13A(1)(a) of the Act is not included in the primary agreement or RentEzi agreement. b. The landlord’s address for service as required by s 13A(1)(f) of the Act is not included in the primary agreement or RentEzi agreement. c. The tenant’s address for service as required by s 13A(1)(g) of the Act is not included in any agreement. d. The amount of any bond as required by s 13A(1)(i) of the Act is not specified in all agreements. e. A list of chattels provided by the landlord as required by s 13A(1)(o) of the Act is not included in any agreement. f. A statement as to whether the tenancy is intended to last for 28 days or more pursuant to s 66C(1)(a) of the Act which was not included in any agreement. g. The room number of the boarding room to which the tenancy relates pursuant to s 66C(1)(c) of the Act which is on some agreements but not all. h. A statement as to whether the boarding room that the tenant is renting is shared by other tenants, and if so the maximum number of other tenants who may occupy the room under s 66C(1)(d) of the Act which is not included in all agreements. i. A statement as to whether the tenancy is a joint tenancy, and if so the names of the other people who will occupy the boarding room under the tenancy agreement pursuant to s66C(1)(e) of the Act which is not included in all agreements. j. A description of the fire evacuation procedures that apply to the premises pursuant to s 66C(1)(h) of the Act which is not included in all agreements. k. A signed statement pursuant to section 13A(1A) of the Act that provides the following information: 90 a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. 91 l. A signed HHS statement as required by section 13A(1F)(a) of the Act. m. An insurance statement pursuant to section 13A(2) of the Act.
A landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include the above specified information, 92 and statements 93 pursuant to s13A of the Act and as such is liable to an award of up to a maximum of $750. It is not an unlawful act to breach section 66C of the Act. Discussion
Three agreement ‘types’ were established to have been used by the Respondent in the construction of all or most of the alleged tenancies. The Applicant contends that each agreement breaches section 13A or 66C of the Act in some or a variety of ways.
Tenancy agreements were not produced in relation to all tenancies. Mr Miller’s submission is that it is more likely than not that Mr Goodger used one of these three agreements for all tenants given his accepted practices.
Mr Goodger agrees that the primary agreement as identified by TCIT was the document he has used for most of his tenancies. He says he tried using the Flatmate Template after Operation Phoenix in response to the warning letter but soon realised it was not fit for purpose.
He says TCIT did not provide sufficient help regarding the deficiencies in his agreements at the time but accepts he attended an interview with his lawyer and TCIT at which the agreements were discussed, and he subsequently received the warning letter referencing the requirements of tenancy agreements. 90 See section 13A(1B) and (1C) of the Act. 91 Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. 92 See sections 13A(1AAA), 109 and Schedule 1A of the Act. 93 See sections 13A(1F) 109 and Schedule 1A of the Act
He says he has always tried to keep his agreements short in an effort to assist his tenants who are transient and not interested in receiving copious amounts of documents. He developed the primary agreement to meet their needs he says.
He refers to the link provided on the primary agreement to the Tenancy Services website that details the rights of a boarding house tenant and says he never tried to hide a tenant’s rights from them.
He originally agreed 94 he had seen the boarding house template agreement on the Tenancy Service website but considered it inappropriate for his use given the particular nature of Queenstown migrant workers. However, just prior to the last days of the hearing he found a way he could make the template work and says he is now 95 using the agreement.
I accept on the evidence that not all of the information required by sections 13A(1) or 66(1)(c) of the Act was included in any of the three agreements used. I also consider it more likely than not given Mr Goodger’s evidence that the majority of tenants were asked to contract with him using one of the three agreements.
Mr Goodger’s initial evidence is that he emailed every tenant the supplementary statements 96 with their tenancy agreements. When challenged he amended this evidence to say that he sent them out in bulk emails on 7 June 2021, 6 October 2021,1 June 2022, 20 June 2023, 1 October 2023, 11 December 2023, and 9 April 2024. 97 Clearly therefore he was aware of his obligations to provide the statements.
He also says those tenants who had Rentezi logins had access to the documents through that portal. There is no evidence of this, and I do not consider it likely.
Mr Goodger says he considered his practices met the purposes of the Act because as well as the bulk emails he also posted the statements in his properties. He says he also explained these to tenants when they initially viewed the property. Accordingly in his perspective the tenants obtained the required information.
This is in direct contrast to [Tenant 25]’s evidence who says the statements were not explained, nor even pointed out to her. It is also not substantiated by any other tenant spoken to by the investigators, many of whom were not aware of them. I prefer the tenants’ evidence. 94 During the hearing and on page 8 of the transcript of the October 2021 interview 95 As at 24 and 25 June 2025 96 HHS, insurance and insulation 97 EXH 23 page 390 Mr Goodger: They’ve all received them.
Not one tenant who was interviewed by TCIT advised they had been provided with the statements by email after they signed their tenancy agreements. Very few of them gave evidence to say they were aware of the contents of the statements displayed or how compliant the home was.
I am satisfied on the evidence of the tenants that whilst Mr Goodger did give them either the original or a copy of their tenancy agreement, he did not provide additional statements regarding insurance, insulation or HHS with the agreement. None of the interviewed tenants noted a familiarity with the HHS, insulation nor insurance as one might expect if Mr Goodger did indeed take the steps he asserts he did to familiarise tenants with the specifications of the property.
Further, although Mr Goodger’s evidence is that the statements were displayed in each residence, there is no evidence they were displayed at 48D Huff. I do not accept Mr Goodger’s statement that they were removed by tenants as there is no evidence to substantiate that claim. He gave conflicting evidence as to where they ‘might’ have been placed and what happened to them.
Either way, neither bulk emails nor displaying a statement in the property meets the requirements of section 13A or 66C of the Act. As stated in The Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment v James Oai Truong (Oai Phuoc Truong) [2025] NZTT 4915895 at [289] a plain reading of section 13A shows that the statements must be included “in the tenancy agreement” and it must be signed. This is for the obvious reason that a contracting party should be aware of what they are contracting for, before they agree to a tenancy.
The statutorily directed process did not occur for any of these tenants.
Mr Goodger has downplayed his actions with respect to the agreements. Whilst he says he is “extremely remorseful about the confusing statements and errors in some” of his agreements he does not appear to accept that all three of his precedent documents are not fit for purpose. He was notified they were incorrect in Operation Phoenix and at the first hearing. Changes had not been made by the second hearing.
His defence that the issues are minor because he has never had any real tenant complaint is unsustainable. Lack of complaint does not mitigate a breach of the Act.
He additionally blames inadequate assistance from MBIE to rectify the agreement. This is also not a mitigating factor. Whilst it is part of TCIT’s ambit to provide education on the Act 98 it is a landlord’s obligation to ensure they are 98 S123(1)(b) of the Act compliant in the way they function. There are considerable tools freely and widely accessible to do so.
Mr Goodger’s focus during the investigation appears to have been in his perceived injustice of it and what he saw as Investigator MacAulay’s vendetta against him rather than any intention to ensure he was compliant with the Act. Had he taken a more collaborative approach, proceedings may well have not been initiated.
In summary having assessed the evidence very carefully, I make the following findings: a. There is no evidence that Mr Goodger provided the required HHS, insulation or insurance statements with his tenancy agreements. b. Mr Goodger did display some statements in some of his properties but not all as he asserts. c. Many of those displayed were outdated. d. Many of those displayed noted minimum standards not specifics for the property. e. I do not accept Mr Goodger’s assertion that he drew the attention of prospective tenants to these documents or explained them. 99 f. Mr Goodger was aware of the need to provide such statements from at least 2021, probably earlier, as evidenced by his signature and date of 2021 on some of the statements, and his comments in the 2021 interview. g. Mr Goodger chose not to supply these statements with his tenancy agreements instead preferring to keep his agreements brief in response to what he considers the specific needs of his clientele. h. Mr Goodger was clearly aware of the requirements of section 13A because he referenced insulation and insurance in the primary agreement, the displayed (incorrect) statements and sent out bulk emails. This was also discussed in the Warning Letter and 2021 interview. Likewise with section 66C as he gave the majority of his tenants a link to boarding house tenancy requirements.
As such, I am satisfied that Mr Goodger was aware his agreements were incorrect and unlawful but chose to continuously use them because they suited his needs and his perception of his tenants’ needs. This is not a defence to incompliance. 99 [Tenant 25]’s evidence contradicts this, and I prefer her evidence.
Accordingly, the Respondent has breached section 13A and 66C of the Act in the use of his tenancy agreements, the former of which is an unlawful act. I find this act intentional for the above reasons.
I make this finding with respect to the 61 tenancies that have been established to have had a tenancy agreement either by its production or tenant evidence. I do not consider that I can make awards in relation to tenancies that have not been established in evidence to have the alleged tenancy agreement.
I discuss exemplary damages below.
Because a breach of section 66C of the Act is not an unlawful act, the Applicant seeks a declaration to this end rather that a monetary award. As I have found that the Respondent has breached section 66C, I make the declaration as sought.

Has the Respondent attempted to contract tenants into unlawful transactions?

Pursuant to section 137(1) of the Act no person may enter into any transaction, contract or arrangement, or do anything: a. that contravenes, or will contravene, any provision of the Act; or b. for the purpose, or having the effect of, evading, defeating or preventing the operation of any provision of that Act.
The Applicant contends the Respondent has breached the Act in respect of all tenancies by including unlawful clauses in tenancy agreements in breach of section 137(1) of the Act.
Specifically in the primary agreement the following clauses were used and as I accept that each was unlawful, I discuss my reasoning alongside: a. “The tenant agrees to pay for full legal costs if a tenancy order is issued against him/her in favour of the manager/Landlord” i. This is in contravention of section 102 of the Act which prohibits the Tribunal from awarding costs, subject to limited exceptions. b. “The tenant intends to live here for 6 months or more and insulation and insurance details conveyed” i. This is in contravention of section 66V of the Act which only requires a tenant to provide 48 hours’ notice if they wish to terminate a boarding house tenancy. ii. The Act does also not allow fixed term boarding house tenancies; tenants are entitled to end their tenancy at any time. 100 iii. Further this clause does not exempt the landlord from proving the required insulation and insurance statements in the tenancy agreement pursuant to section 13A. c. “Every one must maintain and respect the house as their own, keeping all communal areas clean and tidy” / “You must vacuum communal areas, keep dishes washed, and bathrooms tidy” i. This clause contravenes section 66I(a) of the Act which is clear that it the landlord’s responsibility to “ensure that the facilities of the premises are in a reasonable state of cleanliness”. 101 d. “All flat mates are jointly and severally liable for all or any damages to property or furniture” i. A boarding house tenant is only liable for their own actions and those of anyone on the premises with their permission, not for that of other tenants. 102 e. “The head tenant and/or manager reserve the rite (sic) of an inspection at any time and to demand flat mates to clean and tidy areas to a high standard” i. This is in breach of section 66R which notes the only times a landlord may enter a boarding house tenant’s room. ii. It is also in breach of section 66K(c) which states that a boarding house tenancy must keep their room reasonably clean and reasonably tidy, and in a condition that does not create a health or safety hazard, not to a high standard. f. “Your [rent] payment covers the first $8 of your power bill. After this you will need to pay for the extra energy you and your flatmates consume” i. This is in breach of section 66E(3) of the Act which provides that a tenant is responsible for all outgoings that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s boarding room. This means that electricity supplied to the tenant’s room can only be specifically charged if the supply is separately metered for that particular room. That was not the case 100 Portfolio Property Management Limited v Paul Clutterbuck [2013] NZHC 3165 101 “Facilities” are defined at section 66B and include areas of a property that may be described as “communal areas” – toilet and bathroom facilities; cooking facilities; general living, dining, or recreation areas; laundry facilities; lifts and stairways; rubbish storage and rubbish disposal facilities; appliances for heating and cooling premises; communication facilities; lawns, gardens, and outhouses; any land or buildings intended for use for storage space or for the parking of motor vehicles. 102 See sections 66K & 66L of the Act here. A landlord of a boarding house is responsible for all other outgoings. 103
The Flatmate agreement contained the following unlawful clauses: a. This agreement can be terminated by 14 days’ notice given by either party in writing” i. Section 66U of the Act prescribes when a landlord may terminate a boarding house tenancy and how, as such a broad provision such as this is unlawful. ii. A tenant may also give less notice in accordance with section 66U of the Act. b. “In the event of a dispute, the parties agree that the dispute will be determined by the Disputes Tribunal” i. The Tenancy Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes that exist between a landlord and a tenant pursuant to section 77(1) of the Act, and a landlord cannot contract out of that jurisdiction.
Mr Goodger accepts the unlawfulness of all clauses saying he is remorseful and regretful of them.
He does say however that he never enforced any of these clauses and was a relaxed supportive landlord. I accept his evidence that he does go out of his way to help his tenants however he certainly did enforce the cleaning and electricity charge clauses as he put the charges on tenants’ accounts and many, if not most, of the tenants paid them.
Whilst I accept that at times Mr Goodger or his agent did some cleaning at some properties, it is clear that his expectation was that the tenants would undertake the cleaning of the communal areas themselves. This is not an expectation a landlord of a boarding house can have.
Mr Goodger accepts that he used the three agreements discussed for all of the tenancies that were contracted, unless the occupation was particularly short.
Mr Goodger’s evidence of losing copies of agreements when his phone got wet is credible. Further, the majority of tenants interviewed said they did have a tenancy agreement and Mr Goodger displayed the template agreement in each of the homes. Accordingly, I find it more likely than not that each tenant was asked to sign or agree to an agreement that contained unlawful clauses.
I am therefore satisfied that each of the 61 tenants that have been established in evidence to have a tenancy agreement, contracted with unlawful clauses. 103 See section 66E of the Act Contracting to contravene or evade the provisions of this Act pursuant to section 137 is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be awarded to a maximum of $1,800. I discuss monetary awards below as I have found this was an intentional act by the Respondent. Has the Respondent breached section 123A(4) of the Act by failing to provide requested documents by TCIT regarding 8 properties?
Section 123A (2) of the Act provides that the Chief Executive may by notice in writing require a landlord to produce to the Chief Executive any specified documents. A landlord who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with such a notice commits an unlawful act.
The Notice sent by Investigator Macaulay lists the properties and states: “As a landlord, you must retain certain documents during and for 12 months after the termination of a tenancy and provide these to us if required... Please send us copies of the tenancy agreement...”
Investigator Macaulay gave oral evidence to say he explained this request in additional conversations with Mr Goodger. There are no other written correspondences that provide clearer guidance around the request.
Mr Goodger delayed on responding, then when he did, he provided redacted agreements initially believing the request to be a breach of his tenants’ right to privacy. He subsequently provided a list of tenants’ names and contact details for Investigator Macaulay to match up with the redacted agreements he had. 104 He also provided other unredacted agreements.
Investigator Macaulay considers Mr Goodger acted this way in an intentional effort to obstruct the investigation.
Mr Goodger says he was confused by the request as it was misleading, and he also thought it was an unlawful request given how broad it was. He had in 2019 been given a similarly broad request 105 and had been told after complaint that it had been too generalised. 106 He considered this situation similar.
When he was advised that the request was lawful, he provided what he could given the lost agreements, but his response was certainly incomplete. 104 The tenant list. 105 Letter dated 1/11/19 requesting “all tenancy agreements or any variations or renewals of these, for the last 12 months for this address and any other property you are currently renting. 106 Letter from Steve Watson, National Manager TCIT, 15 November 2019: “...it was found that a number of requests would have been confusing for the reader. It was also found to be initially too broad.
In oral evidence he says he “had generally all of the tenancy agreements” but “maybe there may have been one or two missing”. This does not reflect the actual situation where he was only able to provide 56 to TCIT.
I accept his evidence that he may have lost some when his phone got wet, but I find it more likely than not that the primary reason he was not able to provide the documents was because he did not employ adequate business practices. His process of taking a photo of a tenant’s agreement and then transferring the photo to his computer is a wholly inadequate process, particularly given the large-scale operation he runs.
However, having considered the evidence very carefully I do not accept that Mr Goodger failed to comply with the Notice intentionally. The Notice is drafted poorly and creates confusion. It is not a clear request particularly given the scale of the request and the finding from MBIE that the earlier request was confusing.
Whilst Mr Goodger did delay in responding, given his history with receiving a similarly poorly drafted notice, and his concerns regarding his tenants’ privacy, I find that he had a reasonable excuse. He did provide the majority of the information he had, albeit late, he even produced information relating to tenancies not in the relevant period.
The general purpose of TCIT is set out in section 123(1) of the Act and simplified on the website. 107 Essentially, TCIT has the mandate to ensure landlords comply with their obligations. In doing so I consider they are implicitly required to have clear transparent written and oral conversations with landlords. A landlord cannot be expected to comply with directions that are ambiguous. This request was not clear and as such I do not consider it just that the Respondent be held to account for failing to comply with it.
Certainly a landlord has clear obligations pursuant to section 123A of the Act to retain certain documentation for 12 months after the termination of a tenancy and pursuant to section 30 to keep proper business records. I have no difficulty in finding that the Respondent has breached both these obligations, however that is not the claim the Applicant brings.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

What monetary orders should be made?

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, 107 Tenancy Compliance and Investigations team » Tenancy Services having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. 108
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do. 109
The District Court has also more recently held that for the element of intention to have been met, the “the unlawful act must have been committed intentionally in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge that they were not meeting their obligations.” 110
It must also be just to make such an order which is designed to punish and make an example of the landlord. 111
The Applicant seeks awards of exemplary damages at the higher end of the scale for all unlawful acts. Ms Siannia submits that Mr Goodger has been officially warned twice and has had numerous conversations with TCIT and QLDC since 2019 regarding his obligations. He was aware he was required to provide the statements with tenancy agreements but did not do so because he thought he knew better.
Despite his involvement with TCIT, QLDC and FENZ over the last six years he remains in breach of the Act and his efforts to comply have only occurred towards the end of the protracted proceedings. In particular she says his failure to comply with the Building Act was to maximise profits at the expense of the tenants who suffered from overcrowding.
Ms Siannia submits that it is in the public interest for the awards to be high as a message to the community that the Tribunal considers such breaches serious. Awards should serve as a reminder to landlords to not use their powerful positions inappropriately. 112 The Respondent is a large landlord in a market that caters to vulnerable migrant workers. These tenants, being for the most part foreign nationals, were not aware of their rights and relied on their experienced landlord to treat them lawfully.
It is important she says that such landlords be deterred from breaching the Act in these ways. Mr Goodger, she submits took advantage of the tenants’ inherent vulnerabilities and the rental crisis in Queenstown to make money. 108 See section 109(3) of the Act. 109 Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland,1/5/2001 110 Stoeveken v Aso & Toheriri [2022] NZDC 9698, at [35] 111 TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 at [32] 112 Thomson v Waikato Real Estate Ltd & Ors [2017] NZTT Hamilton 4091417 at [29]
Finally she submits, there is public interest in protecting the regulatory function of MBIE.
Mr Goodger acknowledge some “technical” breaches of the Act. He says these breaches are largely administrative and have not caused harm to his tenants. He notes he has not received a complaint from the public or neighbours in the 30 years he has been a landlord. There have only been a couple of minor complaints from tenants which he says, given the number of tenants he has had over the years, is remarkable. His understanding is that the vast majority of his tenants have been satisfied with their experience.
He submits that TCIT have overstated his behaviour and the effects of it and the exemplary damages sought are disproportionate. He accepts the need for a level of penalty but submits that the amounts sought are extreme given the low- level conduct. He says most of the issues have arisen from oversight rather than an intention to act deceptively. None of the conduct was outrageous, malicious or exploitative.
Mr Goodger’s evidence is that he is a relaxed, flexible and supportive landlord catering to the specific needs of his tenants. He is a sole operator with a significant portfolio aiming to meet a significant community need.
He says he has always been open to acting lawfully and compliantly however the way the investigation has been run has made that impossible, as well as it being a complex regulatory environment. He has made a proactive and sustained effort to work with FENZ and QLDC as well as TCIT and his efforts should be considered.
He also notes that any large financial penalty will detrimentally affect his ability to invest in his properties to improve them. Change of use
I have found that the Respondent has breached section 66I(c) of the Act with respect to 67 tenancies intentionally as he deliberately modified the properties without applying for consent to do so knowing, or subsequently becoming aware, that he required consent. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $7,200. 113
The impact on these tenants was that they did not have adequate sanitary facilities, ventilation, or light, and resided in overcrowded conditions. Many could not lock their rooms and others lived in uninsulated vehicles. This is in breach of the Building Code and Regulations. Some tenants would have been more impacted than others depending on their length of stay and which room they were occupying. All endured conditions they should not have had to. 113 See sections 66I(4) and 109 and schedule 1A of the Act
I accept that these tenants, being primarily transient foreign migrant workers were vulnerable. They likely had no understanding of New Zealand tenancy law or what their rights were and were here on revokable short-term visas. Housing was limited and the weather in Queenstown can be harsh. They would not have felt able to address their situation.
I am satisfied on the evidence that Mr Goodger had been working with FENZ since Operation Phoenix to ensure all properties had an adequate fire plan and means of escape from fire. He has also removed all padlocks from doors since proceedings were instituted. I do not therefore find that these tenants were at real risk in relation to fire.
He has also taken the following steps: i. 53 McBride Street: removed a partition upstairs so instead of two very small sleeping spaces there is now one larger one, and ensured all bedrooms have an accessible window and correctly sized door and adequate means of egress. There are still however 10 tenants including one in a bus and one in a caravan. ii. 48C Huff Street: Removed partitions upstairs so instead of two small sleeping areas there is now one larger one, and ensured all bedrooms have an accessible window and correctly sized doors and means of egress. There are still however 10 tenants including one in a truck and one in a caravan. iii. 10 Perkins Road: Removed the cubicles so there is now one large room instead of two smaller rooms, ensured all bedrooms have an accessible window and correctly sized doors and means of egress, and removed padlocks. There are still however 10 tenants including in 2 caravans. iv. 2 Johnson Place: Removed all padlocks and ensured all bedrooms have windows. There are still 11 tenants with one in the garage and one in the caravan.
The remaining issues as identified by the Notices to Remedy are the number of tenants and that tenants reside in external structures such as caravans.
Mr Goodger has taken an extremely lackadaisical approach to compliance with the Building Act of his boarding houses. He seems to consider that given he is meeting a public need, it is nonsensical to comply. For example, why he questions, would he only house 5 tenants in a large house when there is a housing shortage.
Mr Goodger has been aware for many years of the relationship between the Building Act and boarding houses. He has run boarding houses knowing they do not comply, likely considering the revenue he gathers from doing so worth the risk. He has been warned many times and yet continued to operate regardless.
Parliament has set the maximum exemplary damages award at a high level, no doubt to signal the seriousness with which it takes such breaches. Breaching the Building Act can mean tenants reside in uncomfortable, unsanitary and potentially dangerous homes.
MBIE’s regulatory statement 114 regarding the introduction of provisions regarding unlawful premises highlights the difficulties local councils face in enforcing breaches of the Building Act or Building Code which results in landlords breaching without repercussion. As follows: “14. However, it is understood that many such offences are not prosecuted and neither are many infringement fines issued, as they are not brought to the attention of councils and because of the resources required to prove non- compliance. Infringement fines for failure to comply with these requirements under the Building Act are generally only between $1,000 and $5,000. In any case, the Building Act has very few requirements (and penalties) to regulate premises at the point at which they are offered for rent.
It is unfair that some landlords can continue to benefit while evading legal requirements, while the vast majority of landlords are rightfully complying with their obligations.”
Whilst these comments were made with respect to the larger issue of a landlord renting out a fully unlawful premise, they do establish the lack of available repercussion for landlords breaching the Building Act. Whilst the Act is not intended to make up for other statutory or regulatory deficiencies, it is relevant that Mr Goodger has been found to be non-compliant in the view of the QLDC but is not likely to face sanction through council processes.
Accordingly in considering an award of exemplary damages and restraining orders I bear in mind that the QLDC does not consider four of Mr Goodger’s properties compliant with the Building Act however are not in a position to take further steps.
Finally, there is significant public interest in ensuring that landlords of boarding houses provide compliant, and as such, safe and fit for purpose, properties. For the above reasons I consider it just to make an award of exemplary damages. 114 Application of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to rental premises which are not lawful for residential purposes - 23 May 2017 - Regulatory Impact Statement - Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
I note that exemplary damages are designed to punish and deter. 115 Although one award of damages, if sufficiently high, would hopefully have that result, I must make awards relating to 67 tenancies. For this reason, I consider an award for each at the lower end of the scale is appropriate. Put another way, I have considered the cumulative effect on the Respondent and the public.
Having considered all of the above I find that an award of $800 for each tenancy just, totalling $53,600. Contracting for prohibited transactions
I have found that the Respondent has breached section 137(1) of the Act with respect to 61 tenancies in a variety of ways.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,800.00. 116
I am satisfied that this was an intentional act for the following reasons: a. Mr Goodger has stated on a variety of occasions that he is well aware of his obligations under the Act, he “reads the Act” and the Tenancy Services website, and he takes advice. b. Mr Goodger has given clear evidence that he created the primary agreement to meet his and his tenants needs whilst being aware of the law. c. He was warned his agreements were unlawful and yet kept using them.
Turning then to whether an award of exemplary damages is just. 117
The effect on these tenants of having agreements that contained unlawful and misleading clauses was to reduce their rights. This was the primary document that governed their tenancy and as such where they looked to determine what action they could take. Further, each agreement did not contain only one unlawful clause, but several.
I accept that Mr Goodger did not enforce some provisions such as the notice provision, but he did enforce others. Either way the tenants would have understood that he could.
There is no evidence that Mr Goodger had been specifically told by TCIT that the clauses of his agreement contravened the Act although their inadequacies had been discussed. There were certainly many opportunities that TCIT could have used to assist Mr Goodger to ensure his agreements were correct. This is 115 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 116 See section 137(2) and Schedule 1A the Act. 117 Section 109 of the Act relevant because when provided with clear guidance at the first and second hearing dates, Mr Goodger did start to change his agreement and practices.
There is significant public interest in ensuring that landlords of boarding houses do not compel vulnerable tenants to agree to terms that defeat their rights.
Taking into account all of the above and the factors of section 109 of the Act, I find that an award of $250 for each breach of section 137 is appropriate. This is a total of $15,250. Tenancy agreements
I have found that the Respondent has intentionally breached section 13A of the Act with respect to 61 tenancies.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. 118
The District Court in Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583, confirmed that when a landlord has committed multiple breaches of the same unlawful act provision the Tribunal must order exemplary damages as a global order, not for each individual breach. Therefore, I make one award per tenancy despite there being several distinct breaches of the section in each agreement.
The effect of this sort of unlawful act is that tenants are not provided with the information they should have had about their tenancy. They have contracted into an arrangement without having complete information about what they are contracting for.
There is a strong public interest in tenants being provided with the information that they are entitled to receive in relation to the tenancy, and in landlords familiarising themselves with their legal obligations.
Mr Goodger appears to have been lackadaisical towards his responsibilities under the Act. He accepts he was told he needed to rectify various issues during operation Phoenix and in the resulting warning letter. He attended the interview with his lawyer and agrees a copy of the warning letter was provided to his lawyer upon which she could advise him.
He has not taken adequate steps to rectify his agreements after Operation Phoenix and whilst he has taken some steps during Operation Flywheel, they were not substantive. He appeared to have got caught up in his perceived injustices regarding both investigations and that was his focus rather than ensuring his compliance. 118 See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A the Act.
Mr Goodger has now advised the Tribunal that he will only be using the Boarding House template agreement available from Tenancy Services. I accept he has taken steps to do so already. It is unfortunate that it took Tribunal hearings to elicit this simple action.
Given the many years the Respondent’s agreements have been intentionally incomplete and inaccurate in a myriad of ways, I consider it just to award exemplary damages.
Having considered all of the above very carefully, and the factors of section 109 of the Act, I find that an award of $200 for each breach of section 13A is appropriate. This is a total of $12,200.

Should restraining orders be made?

Section 109A of the Act states that the Tribunal may restrain further commissions of unlawful acts if satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. It is an offence to intentionally contravene such an order and the landlord would be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,600 for doing so.
Put another way, if the Tribunal makes a restraining order prohibiting the landlord from committing further unlawful acts, and if the landlord breaches that order, then he could be prosecuted in the criminal justice system.
Ms Siannia submits that the Respondent on the evidence appears to have been breaching the Act for a significant period. Previous investigations and warning letters have not had the desired effect and as such weightier measures are now required. Therefore, the Applicant seeks restraining orders for six years for all accepted unlawful acts.
Mr Goodger strongly opposes restraining orders primarily submitting that if they were made, the targeting of him by TCIT will continue and their disingenuous investigation practises will effectively be sanctioned. He says he has been endeavouring to comply with the Act although accepts it has been a long process. To further punish him in this way would be disproportionate to the breaches he submits.
He says the investigation was procedurally flawed and unfair and if restraining orders are made, this process will be protracted. He has not had a balanced approach from TCIT as he considers they have been “hunting” him without providing support. He wants his involvement with TCIT to end.
Mr Goodger submits that restraining orders should be reserved for cases where “there is a clear and persistent pattern of unaddressed unlawful acts, and where other remedies are insufficient to prevent future breaches.” I agree and consider this such a situation.
I have found that the Respondent has breached section 13A and 137 of the Act with respect to tenancy agreements which are unlawful acts.
Mr Goodger had been aware of deficiencies in his agreements since 2019 and yet they were still not fully remedied by the last day of the hearing. This is despite advice being given on how to comply over the years and at the initial stages of the hearing.
Given the scale of his operation and that landlords must comply with their obligations under the Act from the commencement of any tenancy, it would be remiss of me to not take all steps necessary to ensure that the Respondent’s tenancy agreements are lawful going forward.
Accordingly, this is a case where I find a restraining order must be issued in relation to any further unlawful acts around the tenancy agreements the Respondent utilises whilst operating their boarding houses.
With respect to the breach of section 66I(1)(c) of the Act in relation to non- compliance with the Building Act, I also consider restraining orders necessary. Mr Goodger’s stated reluctance to amend the use of the properties further, or apply for permission to change their use in the absence of prosecution by the QLDC is concerning. I accept Mr Bridle’s evidence that any application for change of use will be considered fairly and in accordance with usual practice.
It is a clear obligation that an operator of a boarding house must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. This is to ensure the boarding houses are safe and fit for purpose. These properties are not compliant and have not been so, to Mr Goodger’s knowledge, for many years.
I therefore make restraining orders, restraining the Respondent from committing unlawful acts in relation to: a. Section 66I(1)(c) of the Act. b. Section 13A of the Act. c. Section 137 of the Act.
This order is to apply for a period of 3 years from the date of this decision.

Should costs orders be made?

The Applicant seeks reimbursement of the costs of the complainant in travelling to and attending the hearing.
Mr Goodger considers it is fair that [Tenant 25]’s costs be paid.
Rule 13 of the Residential Tenancies Rules 2010 provides: A person who attends before the Tribunal for the purpose of giving evidence in any proceedings is entitled to receive any fees, allowances, and travelling expenses that the Tribunal directs in accordance with the scale set out in the Schedule of the Witnesses and Interpreters Fees Regulations 1974.
The Witnesses and Interpreters Fees Regulations 1974 have now been replaced 119 by the Witness and Interpreters Fees, Allowances, and Expenses Regulations 2023 (WIFR).
The costs for [Tenant 25]’s travel and attendance at the hearing are in line with the WIFR and accordingly are ordered as sought.
Also pursuant to section 102(4)(a) of the Act I must award reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should suppression orders be made?

Mr Goodger makes extensive submissions in support of suppression orders in his favour. As follows he says: a. Such an order would discourage other landlords from providing much needed accommodation which would be to the public detriment. b. He is a landlord with extensive properties in Queenstown. c. This would have a negative effect on his reputation as the media would sensationalise the decision. d. “Negative publicity would embolden tenants to withhold rent and make frivolous complaints, knowing legal avenues are lengthy and costly. This would further destabilize the rental market and harm the New Zealand economy.” (sic) e. He has provided a vital social service for over 30 years housing over 10,000 Queenstown workers with limited complaint. f. His parents are elderly and unwell and a damning decision about their son would have a detrimental effect on their wellbeing and possibly health.
Ms Siannia opposes Mr Goodger’s application. She says that any alleged effect on his parents is speculative as is the idea that it would deter other landlords from providing housing in a market of high demand. To the contrary she submits as it would more likely have the impact of encouraging compliance with the Act.
With respect to the argument that publication would have a detrimental affect on his reputation, Ms Siannia submits this is a natural consequence of acting 119 Section 15 Witness and Interpreters Fees, Allowances, and Expenses Regulations 2023 unlawfully. He is still a landlord and as such the public deserves to be aware of his practices she says. None of Mr Goodger’s submissions, she submits, outweigh the public interest in the Tribunal’s findings.
Pursuant to section 115B of the Act there is a statutory expectation that decisions of the Tenancy Tribunal are published on the internet as soon as practicable, unless there is good reason not to publish them. This is because the usual premise is that judicial proceedings are open and accessible, unless the circumstances are exceptional. 120
In 2020 Parliament introduced changes to the Act to provide an ability for the Tribunal to order name suppression, which is now possible pursuant to section 95A of the RTA. This provision was introduced to address an identified barrier to people accessing the Tenancy Tribunal, which is often the case for tenants.
Section 95A states the limited circumstances in which suppression orders can be made, as follows:
Section 95A therefore does the following, in summary: a.Creates a statutory expectation that the successful party will have available name suppression if they apply for it, unless the Tribunal considers that party’s name should be published; and b.Creates a statutory discretion for the Tribunal to order name suppression to any party (such as the unsuccessful party), after taking into consideration the parties’, and public interest.
The discretion afforded to the Tribunal to consider whether suppression should be granted requires the Tribunal to evaluate the facts of the individual case, against the relevant law that applies – both statute and case law.
The Court of Appeal and the High Court, both of which the Tribunal is bound to follow, are clear that the starting point is the principal of open justice and it is only in very special circumstances that suppression orders should be made. 121 120 See Read v Police HC Tauranga CRI-2011-470-3, 29 September 2011 at [20]. 121 Victim X v Television New Zealand Ltd 73 NZLR 220 The High Court has stated that the question is whether the facts in the case are sufficient to displace that presumption of open reporting, so as to support name suppression. 122
In G v Attorney General, 123 Hansen J described name suppression in civil cases as rare, and reviewed the New Zealand and English Authorities supporting that approach. Reference was made to Taylor v Attorney General [1975] 2 NZLR 675 where the Court of Appeal made it clear that the public interest in the transparent administration of justice is not easily displaced, and applies with equal force to the civil and criminal proceedings.
Given the Respondent in this case has not been the successful party, section 95A(4) RTA applies. That provision allows the Respondent to request that their name and identifying details are suppressed. However, in order to grant name suppression, the Tribunal must “have regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest”. Applying those considerations requires a balancing exercise of two potentially competing considerations.
Having considered the evidence and submissions very carefully, I must dismiss Mr Goodger’s application. I find that the public interest is considerably weightier than any of the submitted negative effects on Mr Goodger. He remains a prominent Queenstown boarding house landlord and as such the public should be aware of his practices.
Pursuant to s95A(2) of the Act I must direct suppression orders relating to the identifying details of all tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4913074 — Exemplary damages at Multiple Tenancies

Tenancy Tribunal case 4913074 — Exemplary damages at Multiple Tenancies

Order

Reasons

Was the investigation lawful?

Have obligations of natural justice been breached?

Was the evidence obtained lawfully?

Did the investigators enter the properties lawfully?

Were the proceedings brought lawfully?

Has the Respondent attempted to contract tenants into unlawful transactions?

What monetary orders should be made?

Should restraining orders be made?

Should costs orders be made?

Should suppression orders be made?

Order

Reasons

Was the investigation lawful?

Have obligations of natural justice been breached?

Was the evidence obtained lawfully?

Did the investigators enter the properties lawfully?

Were the proceedings brought lawfully?

Has the Respondent attempted to contract tenants into unlawful transactions?

What monetary orders should be made?

Should restraining orders be made?

Should costs orders be made?

Should suppression orders be made?