Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5121828 — 14-day notice
Decided 17 Sept 2025 · Published 17 Sept 2025 · Application 5121828
- 14-day notice
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [Tenant’s 1] name and identifying details.
- Kaku Waikato Limited must pay [Tenant 1] $3,347.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Bond Refund $3,320.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $3,347.00 Total payable by Landlord to [Tenant 1] $3,347.00
Reasons
- Only [tenant 1] attended the hearing. [Tenant 1] was supported by [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 3] who were also living at the premises.
- A Mandarin interpreter was arranged and attended the hearing but there was no appearance for [the landlord/s].
- A teleconference took place on 11 March 2025. The [landlord/s] sent documents to the Tribunal by email the week prior and requested an adjournment to prepare for the hearing. [Tenant 1] also sought time to file further evidence. The hearing was adjourned to today’s date for both parties to file further evidence.
- The Tribunal also directed that if [the landlord/s] also had a claim they want dealt with at the next hearing, they must file their application with Tenancy Services within 14 days.
- [The landlord/s] has not filed a counter claim.
- The file records that notice of the hearing was sent to [the landlord/s] by email, therefore, the hearing today proceeded in [the landlord/s]’s absence.
- [Tenant 1]’s claims can be summarised as follows: (a)Refund of the bond of $3320.00 (b)Compensation for breaches by the landlord as follows: - denying the tenant use of the parts of the premises including the main bathroom, the garage and parts of the living area - not giving the required notice before entering the premises - breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises
- The Tribunal must first determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear this claim as the agreement provided is headed Flat/house - sharing agreement. The head tenant is recorded as a company. [Tenant 1] claims that the named head tenant company was her landlord.
Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this claim?
- The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes between landlords and tenants in relation to a residential dispute that comes within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
- The definition of landlord is not limited to the owner of the premises. According to section 2 the meaning includes the "grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement".
- The definition of premises includes “any part of any premises”. See section 2 RTA.
- In order to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction it is necessary to look at the nature of the relationship between the parties.
- [Tenant 1] entered into an agreement with Kaku Waikato Ltd on 8 February 2024. The agreement was headed Flat/House – sharing agreement. The agreement recorded the address as [tenancy address suppressed] and also made reference to [tenancy address suppressed]. The agreement recorded under “Head tenant details” the name of the respondent and under “Flatmate details” the name of the applicant.
- [Tenant 1] claimed that this was not the actual relationship between the parties as Kaku Waikato Ltd the agent was not a head tenant but actually the landlord granting them a tenancy of three bedrooms in the premises with shared living area.
- [Tenant 1] stated that she and her two friends answered an advertisement for the premises that stated that one bedroom in the premises was occupied and there were three available bedrooms. She signed the agreement on behalf of all three occupants and they moved into the premises.
- There was one other occupant of the premises that they knew only as [the third party]. They understood that she rented a room for her immigration business. The occupants each had their own room and shared the living areas.
- The rent was paid to Kaku Waikato Ltd. The utilities were not separately metered, and the tenants were charged a portion of these on irregular intervals.
- A bond of $3320.00 was paid to Kaku Waikato Ltd as recorded in the agreement.
- Having considered the evidence I find on the balance of probabilities that [Tenant 1] and Kaku Waikato Ltd were in a landlord/tenant relationship for part of a premises for the following reasons: (a)Kaku Waikato Ltd did not occupy the premises. (b)Kaku Waikato Ltd is an agent, and not a head tenant, who granted the tenancy. (c)Kaku Waikato Ltd received the bond and rent for the premises as agent for the owner. (d)Although the agreement is worded as a flat/house sharing agreement the nature of the relationship between the parties appears more likely than not to be a landlord/tenant relationship.
- Therefore, the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this claim.
Should the bond be refunded to the tenant?
- This tenancy ended on 19 August 2024.
- The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
- The tenants advised that the landlord sought to retain their bond for cleaning and damages, and they dispute this. They provided evidence today of cleaning the premises at the end of the tenancy and disputed there were any damages beyond fair wear and tear.
- Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
Did the landlord breach their obligations?
- [Tenant 1] claims the landlord has breached their obligations by entering the premises without consent or notice and interfering with their reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) and 48 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenants stated that the landlord would sometimes communicate with them through [the third party] due to language difficulties.
- The tenants stated that problems developed during the tenancy as [the third party] did not sleep at the premises and would often be away. She would not allow them to use certain parts of the property including the garage and second bathroom and they could not park in front of her business sign. The tenants stated that [the third party] would consent to contractors entering the premises without notice to the rest of the occupants and told them they could not have friends over. They felt that she was being controlling of how they used the premises.
- I have considered the evidence. Although I accept that there were communication issues I am not satisfied that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to prove their claim against the landlord to the required standard. The dispute appears to be largely with the other occupant of the premises and that is not a matter that the Tenancy Tribunal can determine. There is insufficient evidence that this was caused or permitted by the landlord. Filing fee/Suppression
- Because [Tenant 1] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and suppress the tenant details in the order as applied for. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.