What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5190012?

The tribunal order states: Northwest Realty Limited As Agent For Tong Family Trustee Limited must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5190012?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Water: $280.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Unlawful Residential Tenancy: $3,047.14 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5190012?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5190012?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12871397-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5190012?

The tribunal order states: Northwest Realty Limited As Agent For Tong Family Trustee Limited must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5190012?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Water: $280.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Unlawful Residential Tenancy: $3,047.14 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5190012?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5190012?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12871397-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18 Kent Terrace, Riverhead, Riverhead 0820, TH Tenancy Tribunal Case 5190012 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5190012 — net $4,204.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Unlawful residential tenancy	$3,047.14	Unlawful residential tenancy
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$200.00	Loss of amenity
Compensation: Water	$280.00	Water
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes compliance	$250.00	Healthy Homes compliance
Exemplary damages: Quiet enjoyment	$400.00	Quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,204.14
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,204.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5190012 — net $4,204.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Unlawful residential tenancy	$3,047.14	Unlawful residential tenancy
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$200.00	Loss of amenity
Compensation: Water	$280.00	Water
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes compliance	$250.00	Healthy Homes compliance
Exemplary damages: Quiet enjoyment	$400.00	Quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,204.14
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,204.14

Order

Northwest Realty Limited As Agent For Tong Family Trustee Limited must pay Camila Antonia Fachinetti Fuenzalida $4,204.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

It is declared that during the tenancy the premises (Tiny House) at 18 Kent Terrace, Riverhead was an unlawful residential tenancy.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
There was a hearing on 26 August 2025. After the hearing, but before the order was issued, the tenant provided the Tribunal with information that needed to be considered further by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal adjourned the proceedings to a further hearing held on 15 December 2025. Background
The tenancy began on 29 May 2024 and ended on 9 April 2025. It was a periodic tenancy.
The premises are a tiny house that was moved onto the property where another home (not part of this tenancy) is located. Reason for adjournment
At the first hearing the Tribunal was advised that Auckland Council issued the landlord with a notice to fix on 11 March 2025. The notice to fix was issued for carrying out building work without building consent. That Notice to Fix was subsequently reversed on 11 August 2025 because “...the notice to fix does not clearly identify the building work that the authority contends required building consent.” 1
After the first hearing the tenant received an email from Auckland Council, dated 29 September 2025, stating that a new notice to fix had been issued. The email thread from the Senior Compliance Officer states, “MBIE upheld the fact that the tiny house was a building and did require a building consent. They reversed the notice to fix as I wasn’t specific enough in my detail with regards to what the property owner was required to remedy.” Unlawful residential tenancy
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it must not make an order for rent arrears or compensation against the tenant unless, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to 1 Determination 2025/039 by Peta Hird, Lead Determinations Specialist, dated 11 August 2025, at
15 make the order. The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may also make a work order requiring the landlord to remove any impediment to lawful occupation or to comply with any building, health or safety requirements. The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA.
The MBIE Determination referred to above states 2 , “I am of the view that the unit is a building under section 8(1)(a). As such, any work associated with it may be building work regulated under the Act.” In that document “Act” refers to the Building Act 2004.
At the hearing the landlord provided the Tribunal with a copy of the notice to fix dated 17 September 2025. The notice identifies the following building work was undertaken without first obtaining a building consent: “The construction of a wastewater connection from the tiny house’s wastewater pump to the main wastewater pipe servicing the property.”
Also included in the notice to fix was detail of non-compliance with the Building Code in respect of the stairs on the deck and the lack of a handrail.
The notice to fix was to be complied with by 30 January 2026. At the hearing the landlord provided evidence that the landlord had undertaken work toward compliance however there is no confirmation of compliance from Auckland Council.
The landlord produced a document (PS3) stating that Drain King 2016 Ltd carried out work to remedy the tiny home wastewater connection. That document is signed by the plumber and dated 27 November 2025.
Also produced by the landlord are work notes from the plumber when work was carried out on 14 April 2025 which includes the following: “Thing that with the flow and pressure from the tiny home pump is creating too much suction for the existing external vent, and being that close to other internal fixtures that is sucking out the water trap in the shower allowing smells to escape the system.”
While the landlord appears to have carried out the necessary remedial work required by the notice to fix, the documents confirm that during the period of this tenancy the premises were unlawful residential premises because they were a building as determined by MBIE, which is accepted, and building consent was required but not obtained in relation to the construction of a wastewater connection. 2 Determination 2025/039 by Peta Hird, Lead Determinations Specialist, dated 11 August 2025, at para 4.9
In relation to the failure to obtain building consent for the tiny house the landlord’s position is that the tiny house is a vehicle and therefore consent is not required.
The landlord produced a document from MBIE which provides guidance in respect of tiny homes. Within that document there is guidance and flow charts to determine whether a tiny house is a building or a vehicle. The guidance states that “a tiny house could be considered as a building or a vehicle, or both a building and a vehicle. In some circumstances you may require a building consent even if the tiny house has wheels”.
The flow chart asks, if the tiny house is a ‘vehicle’ as defined by the Land Transport Act 1998 3 if the answer is yes then the flowchart asks, “is the tiny house both immovable and occupied by people on a long-term basis? If the answer to these questions is “yes” then the tiny house is a building, even though it is also a vehicle.
Vehicle is defined as follows: means a contrivance equipped with wheels, tracks, or revolving runners on which it moves or is moved
I am not convinced that this tiny house is a vehicle even though the landlord advised at the hearing that there are wheels for it in the shed.
Even if the tiny house were a vehicle, it must also be a building because it is immovable. Factors which support the conclusion that the house is immovable are that it is not designed to be moved or relocated with relative ease (it was moved to site by a crane), it does not have features common to vehicles (suspension, shocks, springs...), and it is connected to onsite services e.g. Water, wastewater, electricity.
In relation to whether it is occupied by people on a long-term basis, it is relevant that the landlord had signed a periodic tenancy because a tiny house will be considered occupied on a permanent basis where there is no anticipated end date to its occupation by people.
The conclusion I reach and which I agree with MBIE is that this tiny house is a building requiring building consent. During the period of the tenancy the landlord did not obtain building consent and there is evidence that it was non- compliant with both the Building Act and the building code.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with “all requirements of the buildings, health and safety so far as they apply to the premises”. I am satisfied on the evidence presented that the landlord has not complied with all the requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety which is a breach 3 Section 2(1) of section 45 (1)(c) RTA and therefore the premises are unable to be lawfully occupied for residential purposes.
Where it finds unlawful residential premises section 78A(4) applies. S78A(4) states; The Tribunal may order the landlord to pay the tenant – (i)The whole of the sum found to have been paid by way of rent for the period for which the Tribunal is satisfied that the premises are or were unlawful premises; or (ii)An amount that is the sum referred to in subparagraph (i) less any amount that the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, it is fair to deduct.
I consider that section 78A(4)(a)(ii) should apply to this case because applying section 78A(4)(a)(i) would be unfair to the landlord as the tenant has had some amenity of living at the property.
At this point I must carefully weigh what amount of rent it is fair to deduct. Other than taking into account the nature of the premises, “the special circumstances” that I must have regard to are not stated within the RTA. However other Tribunal decisions have weighed the following factors: a.The landlord’s motivation for renting the property, and their conduct during the tenancy. b. The tenant’s motivation for renting the property and bringing the claim, and the length of time he lived in the property. c. The benefits the landlord received in renting the property. d. The benefits the tenant received in renting the property. e. The seriousness of the regulatory breaches making the premises unlawful. f. Any other breaches by the landlord. g. Any detriment or loss the tenant suffered. h. The purpose of s 78A in ensuring landlords do not unfairly profit from unlawful premises. i. The public interest in discouraging unlawful tenancies. j.Any other compensation or exemplary damages that are ordered.
The tenant stayed at the tenancy for 45 weeks and 1 day (29 May 2024 to 9 April 2025) and paid $20,314.29 rent. After taking account of the evidence and the circumstances I consider that the tenant should be refunded 15% of the rent paid, totalling $3,047.14. Specific factors in determining this award are: a) There were wastewater issues throughout the tenancy including the septic tank pump not working or shorting and sewerage overflows; b) Not being able to use the toilet for three days; c) Power issues made more difficult by not having access to the switch board due to sharing power with the neighbouring property. Request for HH documents
Camila Antonia Fachinetti Fuenzalida claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On 7 July 2024 the tenant emailed the landlord asking for the Healthy Homes Compliance certificate and information related to insurance. The property manager replied to the email on 10 July 2024 stating that in relation to the compliance certificate they are waiting for the guttering to be installed and the water tank before all is compliant. In relation to the insurance the property manager provided name of the insurance company and policy but no details in relation to the excess.
The landlord obtained a Healthy Homes report prepared by GForce with an issue date of 10 June 2024. The landlord had this report at the date that the tenant enquired about Healthy Homes compliance but did not provide the tenant with a copy.
The landlord failed to provide documents relating to the landlord’s compliance within 21 days of the request. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
This failure to comply created uncertainty for the tenant when the Act provides that the tenant be kept informed of the landlord’s compliance with the Healthy Homes standards. I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $250.00 is reasonable. Quiet enjoyment
Camila Antonia Fachinetti Fuenzalida claims the landlord has harassed them.
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.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord attended at the premises without notice or without sufficient notice. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In relation to installation of the new water tank the landlord gave notice on 22 July that this would take place on 25 or 26 July. Instead, the installation began on Monday 22 July and ended on 10 August, but the system was not finished until 20 September. This was inconvenient for the tenant because she was starting to study at home the day the excavation started. She said that this was the main reason she stopped studying.
The tenant said that the contractors were advised by the landlord to go in the gate and because her entry was unlocked, they would just walk in the garden without notice.
At the hearing the landlord said that the owner had organised the handyman and he was told to inform the tenant.
The tenant said she raised this issue with the property manager but in response she said she was advised that it is not a fixed term tenancy so you can leave if you want. She said that she felt blamed and dismissed.
The failure to give proper notice had an impact on the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. I consider an award of $400.00 for exemplary damages is reasonable. Loss of amenity
The fridge was a chattel provided with the tenancy. In August the fridge broke down and the tenant said she lost some of her food. It took from 28 August until 4 September for a new fridge to be provided.
Also, during the tenancy there was a period where the tenant had no water either from the pump being turned off or a septic leak.
I have calculated compensation for loss of amenity at $200.00. Water
When the new water tank was installed, the landlord did not ensure that it was full with water. The tenant ran out of water in December and the tenant said that she had no way to measure the water level.
It is the landlord’s obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair and fit for habitation 4 . Where a water tank is the only source of water for the premises, it should be filled at the start of the tenancy (or as in this case, when a new water tank is installed) so the property is habitable.
The tenant paid for 10,000 litres of water in January 2025 which she says cost her $280.00.
I award compensation of $280.00 to the tenant for the landlord’s failure to provide a full water tank.
Because Camila Antonia Fachinetti Fuenzalida has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5190012 — Exemplary damages at 18 Kent Terrace, Riverhead, Riverhead 0820, TH

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5190012 — Exemplary damages at 18 Kent Terrace, Riverhead, Riverhead 0820, TH

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions