What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5197512 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5197512?

Compensation: Refund Of Rent: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Credit: $240.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5197512?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5197512?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12470556-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5197512 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5197512?

Compensation: Refund Of Rent: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Credit: $240.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5197512?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5197512?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12470556-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

6 Harlock Place, Huntly, Huntly 3700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5197512 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5197512 — net $2,567.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent credit	$240.00	Rent credit
Compensation: refund of rent	$2,200.00	refund of rent
Exemplary damages	$100.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,567.00
Bond	$350.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,567.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5197512 — net $2,567.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent credit	$240.00	Rent credit
Compensation: refund of rent	$2,200.00	refund of rent
Exemplary damages	$100.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,567.00
Bond	$350.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,567.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details, and of details in the order relating to [The tenant’s friend].
There was a tenancy between the tenant and the landlord of the rear unit at the tenancy address which was rented out as separate premises from 7 October 2024 until 9 March 2025.
The rear unit at the tenancy address is unlawful residential premises.
The landlord or owner of the premises must not rent out the rear unit for use as housing until this use has been certified as compliant by the territorial authority.
Ranjini Tirzah Shaye must pay [The tenant/s] $2,567.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $350.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

[The tenant/s] and the [The landlord/s] attended a case conference and a hearing which were both held remotely.
[The landlord/s] initially told the Tribunal that she had no authority to act in this matter because [The owner] had passed away. [The owner] and [The landlord/s] are the named directors of Tahuna Tirzah Investments Limited (“TTI”) which is a company that [The landlord/s] says owns the property. 1
[The landlord/s] is the landlord 2 because her name, signature, contact details and addresses for service are on the written tenancy agreement supplied by the tenant.
[The tenant/s] agrees that most of his dealings were with [The owner]. [The owner] was effectively acting as [The landlord/s]’s agent during the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for refund of a bond ($1,400.00) and compensation ($7,240.00) alleging that the landlord has:- i. failed to comply with maintenance or Healthy Homes Standards; ii. not provided heating; iii. problems with leaking and mould; iv. not provided an oven and stovetop; v. not supplied separately measurable electricity which resulted in a dispute with the tenant of the other house; vi. not supplied a separate internet connection; vii. that the above problems resulted in a breach of his quiet enjoyment.
The tenant also alleges that the premises he rented are unlawful residential premises. Background
The tenant says he moved to this address on 7 October 2024 and [The tenant’s friend] moved there at the same time.
He explained that [The tenant’s friend] lived in the main 3-bedroom house with her two teenage children, and he lived in a separate self-contained unit at the back of the property. He says he and [The tenant’s friend] were never partners or family. They were friends. 1 The Companies Office register records [The owner] and [The landlord/s] as the two directors of the company. 2 I made this decision in my adjournment order dated 23 June 2025 after the case conference.
The friendship between [The tenant’s friend] and [The tenant/s] broke down over disputes about the amount each should pay for electricity and internet. There was only one electricity and internet account for the address.
[The tenant/s] says [The tenant’s friend] [redacted] after a long night of this, he moved out. This was on 8 or 9 March 2025.
[The tenant/s] asked [The owner] and [The landlord/s] for his bond back. He needed this to be able to pay for new accommodation.
He filed this application on 13 March 2025.
[The tenant/s] did not receive his bond and says he lived in his car for about a month. He says the problems with the unit, with [The tenant’s friend], and with not being refunded his bond have caused him stress and detriment. He wants his rent refunded.

Was the tenant renting the rear unit as separate premises?

One of the key issues is whether the tenant was renting the rear unit as separate premises from the main house.
[The tenant/s] says he agreed with [The owner]and [The tenant’s friend] on the day they viewed the premises, that he would live in the rear unit. He says he did not have access to the main house. He points out that the house had only three bedrooms and these were used and required for [The tenant’s friend], her 19- year-old son, and her 16-year-old daughter.
[The landlord/s] says the intention was that the whole property (the main house and the unit) was rented to [The tenant’s friend] and also to [The tenant/s], and it was up to [The tenant’s friend] and [The tenant/s] how they chose to live there. She agrees there are two separate tenancy agreements but says this was done only at the request of [The tenant’s friend] and [The tenant/s].
[The tenant/s] agrees that the whole property was advertised for rent for $940.00 per week and that he and [The tenant’s friend] wanted to split the property and the rent between them.
[The tenant/s] supplied a tenancy agreement between himself and [The landlord/s] commencing on 7 October 2024. The rent is $350.00 per week. The bond is $1,400.00.
The agreement says:
[The tenant/s] also supplied a tenancy agreement between [The tenant’s friend] and TTI commencing on 7 October 2024. The rent is $590.00 per week. The bond is $2,360.00.
The agreement says:
[The landlord/s] filed a written statement after the case conference that says the “outdoor shed” was “for the purposes of a games room/office or storage” and was not for rental, full or part-time.
[The landlord/s] also supplied a written statement from [The tenant’s friend] prepared after the case conference. This says that [The tenant/s] was “an additional tenant like me and my children of [the tenancy address]” and: A bedroom inside the house was set aside for [The tenant/s] to move into. But overtime I found him slowly living out in the shed gaming night and day 24/7. As the landlord was not aware.
[The tenant/s] says that [The owner] not only knew [The tenant/s] would live in the back unit but proudly showed him the renovations [The owner] told him he had done to the back unit (with the help of family), to install a bathroom and kitchenette extension with new fittings and carpet. [The tenant/s] says [The owner] attended to maintenance at the property including repairing a leak into the unit and knew he was living there.
[The tenant/s refutes [The tenant’s friend] ’s written statement. He says [The tenant’s friend] contacted him to ask if he wanted to share the property with her as it was too expensive for her to rent on her own.
[The tenant/s] provided video evidence taken by [The tenant’s friend] when she viewed the property and which she shared with him. The video shows a well presented and furnished 3-bedroom house with an outdoor covered decking area. The video also shows a separate, detached rear unit with separate living area, two bedrooms, and a kitchenette and bathroom/laundry.
The video is the only evidence supplied by either party showing the property. Neither has provided any other photos.
My decision is that [The tenant/s] was renting the rear unit as a separate dwelling.
The main reasons for my decision are:- a. that the back unit was self-contained (bedrooms, kitchenette and bathroom); b. there were two separate tenancy agreements entered into: one with [The tenant’s friend], and a separate agreement with [The tenant/s]. If the landlords and [The tenant’s friend] and [The tenant/s intended that [The tenant’s friend] and [The tenant/s] would share the entire property, it is more likely that one tenancy agreement would have been entered into which named both [The tenant’s friend] and [The tenant/s] as joint tenants; c. the fact that both tenancy agreements refer only to “the house ... 6 Harlock Place ..” and say the property must not be used “other than a private single- family residence” does not override what happened in practice; d. [The owner] showed [The tenant/s] the rear unit and knew this was where [The tenant/s] intended to live.
I accept [The tenant/s]’s evidence that, in practice, he always lived independently in the back unit and did not share facilities in the main house with [The tenant’s friend] nd her family.
I give limited weight to [The tenant’s friend]’s written statement that it was intended that [The tenant/s] would live in a room in the house. A written statement cannot be tested, and I could not ask [The tenant’s friend] questions because neither party called her as a witness. Her statement is not credible when [The tenant’s friend] and [The tenant/s] are not family or in a relationship and [The tenant’s friend] has two teenage children. It is more believable that [The tenant’s friend] and her two children would live in the bigger house, and [The tenant/s] in the rear unit.
I do not accept that either [The landlord/s] or [The owner] told [The tenant/s] and [The tenant’s friend] that the rear unit could not be lived in. There is nothing in the tenancy agreements to say that the rear unit cannot be lived in.
The facilities and condition of the unit shown in the video support [The tenant/s]’s version of the events.
[The landlord/s] regrets agreeing to the two tenancy agreements. I accept that the landlord may not have intended to have two separate tenancies to start with. However, that is what she agreed to and what happened in practice.
I have made a declaration that there was a tenancy between the tenant and the landlord of the rear unit at the tenancy address which was rented out as separate premises.

Is the rear unit unlawful residential premises?

Section 78A RTA gives the Tenancy Tribunal power to make a range of orders if the evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the premises, are, or were at any material time, “unlawful residential premises”.
Premises are unlawful if:- a. they cannot lawfully be occupied for the purpose for which they have been rented out, 3 and b. the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation 4 . See section 78A(2) RTA.
I made it clear in my first order that if the landlord had evidence that the premises are lawful, she should provide that evidence to the Tribunal. For example, building consents, resource consents, code of compliance certificates, electrical certificates of compliance.
[The landlord/s] says there are no consents for the rear unit. She says TTI purchased the property in about April 2022 as it is now. She did not provide electrical compliance certificates or any other evidence about the unit.
[The tenant/s] provided a copy of a 1997 building consent and code of compliance certificate for a detached garage at the property. He said he telephoned the council and was told this is the most recent permit (building consent) on the file for this property.
[The tenant/s] also said that [The owner] had told him that he (and some of his family and friends) had done the renovations to the garage unit.
My decision is that it is more probable than not that the rear unit is consented for use as a garage and not for residential living or as a separate dwelling. I have made this inference because [The landlord/s] has not provided any evidence to 3 “... cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation)”; s78A(2)(a) RTA. 4 “... where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c), or section 66H(2)(c) or 66I(1)(c), as relevant, has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation”; s78A(2)(b) RTA. contradict this and because [The tenant/s] says the council told him the garage compliance documents are the most recent consents on file.
An owner must not change the use of a building unless the council has given written notice that the building will comply (as nearly as is reasonably practicable) with the building code relating to escape from fire, protection of other property, sanitary facilities, structural performance, and fire-rating performance. If the change of use creates a new household unit, the written notice must certify that the building will comply with the building code in all respects; section 115 Building Act 2004.
A garage is classified as an “outbuilding” which is “not intended for human habitation, and are accessory to the principal use of associated buildings”; clause A1:7 of the Building Code (Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 1992) Classified Uses at 7.0 ‘Outbuildings’.
In this case, the use of the garage has been changed from that of an outbuilding to housing. “Housing” is a different classification of use; clause A1: 2 of the Building Code. During this tenancy, the unit was also used as a new and separate household unit.
The landlord has not supplied evidence that the council has inspected the unit and provided written notice that the building complies with the building code in all respects. If the council had done this, it would be on the property file.
This means the rear unit cannot lawfully be occupied as housing (even as a sleepout) and cannot be occupied as a separate household unit or separate premises.
[The landlord/s] insists the rear unit was already converted and “as it is now” when TTI bought the property in 2022. [The landlord/s] could have brought photos from the real estate listing when the property was purchased to prove the rear unit was already converted, but she did not do so.
[The tenant/s] says [The owner] told him that he had done the renovation with a group of his family and spent a week doing the work. [The tenant/s] also said that the bathroom, kitchenette, and carpet in the rear unit looked and smelled brand new.
I prefer [The tenant/s]’s evidence that some of the conversion of the garage into a self-contained unit happened after TTI bought the property.
However, there is not enough evidence for me to be satisfied that building work done by or on behalf of the landlord in the rear unit is unlawful. This is because I don’t know exactly what work [The owner] did.
If [The owner] did install the bathroom and kitchen sink, then this would have required a building consent because new sanitary plumbing and drainlaying (toilets, showers, sinks) requires a building consent; see Schedule 1 Building Act 2004.
Even if the previous owner did the rear unit conversion, [The landlord/s] is still responsible for the unit being used for housing because she signed the tenancy agreement as landlord.
A landlord must “take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes”; see s36 RTA.
This means [The landlord/s] has a duty to check (for example, with the council or with her lawyer) that the rear unit could be lived in before renting it out. This means she has breached s36 RTA.
My decisions are:- a. That the rear unit is unlawful residential premises because it was being used during this tenancy as a separate dwelling and does not have a building consent or written approval from the council to be used for housing. b. It is not proven that the landlord did building work without a required building consent. However, neither party supplied any documentary evidence about the work done inside the rear unit. The tenant said that [The owner] told him he had done or arranged the renovations, but I do not know exactly what the work entailed. Equally, [The landlord/s] did not supply any plumbing or electrical documents or invoices.
The tenant seeks a refund of all rent paid because the rear unit are unlawful premises. I consider this at the end of this decision. Has the landlord breached its maintenance or Healthy Homes Standards obligations?
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to:- a. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and b. comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
[The landlord/s] agrees that heating and an oven and cooktop were not provided in the rear unit. She says they were not required because the landlord did not rent out the rear unit separately. The heating and cooking facilities were in the main house.
I have already decided that the landlord rented out the rear unit as separate premises. This means that, legally, the landlord was required to provide all facilities in the rear unit.
My decisions are:- a. That the landlord failed to provide heating in the rear unit as required by the Healthy Homes Standards; b. That the landlord failed to provide an oven and stovetop as required in a separate dwelling by the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947; c. That it is not proven that there were problems with leaking and mould. There was no evidence to support this.
The landlord has breached s45 of the RTA.
I will deal with compensation as part of considering a refund of rent because the lack of these facilities is related to the unlawful use of the rear unit for living in. Failure to provide separately measurable electricity and internet
[The tenant/s] says the landlord failed to provide separately measurable power and internet supplies to the rear unit which resulted in a dispute with the tenant of the main house and to him moving out in a hurry. He says this dispute breached his right to “quiet enjoyment” of the tenancy.
The relevant parts of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are:- a. That tenants are liable to pay for outgoings (like power and internet) where the tenant’s use can be separately measured; s39 RTA. b. A landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises and must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants do so; s38 and s45(1)(e) RTA.
The evidence shows that there was one power supply and one internet supply to the whole property at this address.
[The tenant’s friend] was the account holder for the supply of power and internet. [The tenant/s] had no way of contracting separately for these essential services.
A dispute arose between [The tenant’s friend] and [The tenant/s] about how much [The tenant/s] should pay. It was this dispute that caused [The tenant/s] to move out suddenly. Text messages he sent to [The owner] show that [The tenant’s friend] disconnected [The tenant/s]’s internet supply while he was away,[redacted].
[The tenant/s] asked [The owner] to arrange for a check-meter to be installed so he could measure his power use, and asked if an ethernet cable could be run into the rear unit.
The landlord did not take steps to arrange this.
My decision is that the landlord’s failure to rent out the rear unit with a check- meter to measure power use and with a secure internet connection caused or contributed to the dispute between [The tenant’s friend] and [The tenant/s].
The dispute with [The tenant’s friend] breached [The tenant/s]’s quiet enjoyment and led to the breakdown of their relationship and to [The tenant/s] ending his tenancy.
The landlord failed to take reasonable steps to prevent [The tenant’s friend] from interfering with his reasonable peace, comfort and privacy which is a breach of s38 and s45(1)(e) RTA.
This issue is related to the renting out of the rear unit as unlawful premises, so I deal with compensation below. Rent and bond calculations
We spent time in the hearing checking the rent paid by the tenant during the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 7 October 2024. The tenant moved out over the 8 th and 9 th of March 2025. My decision is the tenancy ended on 9 March 2025.
The total rent due over the tenancy is $7,700.00. 5
The landlord has records for rent payments totalling $5,840.00.
The tenant supplied payment records in the hearing for extra payments (made by someone else on his behalf) totalling $1,050.00.
The tenancy agreement said the bond was $1,400.00. The tenant paid this amount before the tenancy started (paid on 3 October 2024) and the landlord received it.
The total paid by the tenant for rent and bond is $8,290.00 ($5,840 + $1,050 + $1400).
I ordered on 23 June 2025 that the landlord lodge the bond of $1,400.00.
The landlord did not do this. Instead, she lodged $350.00 saying that the tenant was required to pay three weeks of rent in advance.
The tenant paid $590.00 for rent in advance also on 3 October 2024.
The $350.00 lodged at the Bond Centre means the total received by the landlord from the tenant is $7,940.00 ($8,290.00 - $350.00). 5 There are 22 weeks from 7 October 2024 (start of tenancy) to 9 March 2025 (end of tenancy). The weekly rent is $350. 22 weeks x $350 = $7,700.00.
The total rent payable is $7,700.00. The total received by the landlord is $7,940.00. The landlord owes the tenant $240.00 as rent in credit. I have included this in the orders. Compensation
The tenant has applied for a refund of all rent he has paid.
I have decided that the landlord has:- a. Rented out the rear unit as unlawful residential premises; b. Breached s45 RTA by not providing heating, or cooking facilities in the unit; c. Breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by not ensuring power and internet could be separately measured.
The Tribunal can refund the whole of the sum paid as rent if premises are unlawful; see s78A(4)(a)(i) RTA.
The Tribunal can also award less than a full refund of rent if there are “special circumstances” that mean it is fair to do so; s78A(4)(a)(ii) RTA.
The law does not specify what sorts of special circumstances are relevant except for the nature of the premises.
The factors that weigh in favour of a rent refund are:- a. the rear unit is not consented for use as housing and has not been certified by council as complying with important fire safety, sanitary, and structural standards; b. there were no proper cooking facilities. The tenant had to provide these; c. the power use could not be separately measured; d. the landlord has probably received more rent than it should have from what was only lawfully a 3-bedroom house with a detached garage; e. the public interest that landlords should not be able to profit from renting out premises that are not consented as being compliant with building and resource management law.
Special circumstances it is fair to take into account to reduce the amount of rent refund are:- a. the “as new” condition of the rear unit; b. the lack of proved problems with the living conditions in the rear unit; c. that the landlord advertised the whole property as being for rent as one premises and only rented the main house and rear unit out separately at the request of the tenants ([The tenant’s friend] and [The tenant/s]); d. the landlord said this was the first tenancy.
The rent charged was $350.00 per week. I have decided to refund $100.00 per week. The tenancy was 22 weeks long. This is a refund of $2,200.00.
The Tribunal can also award a fine or penalty of up to $7,200.00 for failure to comply with building laws requiring building consent or notification of a change of use; s78A(5) RTA.
I have decided to award a fine (exemplary damages) of $100.00. The refund of rent is the main remedy for the tenant, but I award this fine to emphasise to the landlord that it is unlawful to rent out the rear unit for housing.
If [The landlord/s] intends to allow the rear unit to be used for housing purposes and not as a garage, then she must notify the council of the change of use so that it can be inspected for the important fire safety, sanitary/plumbing and other building code aspects.
I have made an order restraining the owner or landlord from renting out the garage/ rear unit until it has been confirmed as compliant. Section 109A RTA. Other breaches
The landlord has also breached the law by:- a. The tenancy agreement says rent must be paid weekly. The law says a landlord can only require a maximum of 2 weeks’ rent in advance; s23(1) RTA. The tenant paid $590.00 rent in advance and the landlord kept an additional $1,050.00 as rent in advance. This is a total of $1,640.00 which is more than 4 weeks’ rent in advance. This is unlawful. b. The landlord was required to lodge the bond of $1,400.00 at the Bond Centre within 23 working days; s19(1)(b) RTA. The landlord breached this section. This is unlawful. c. I made an order on 23 June 2025 that the landlord must lodge the bond of $1,400.00 immediately. The landlord did not do this. Instead, she lodged only $350.00. It is unlawful to breach a work order without reasonable excuse; s108(2A) RTA. d. The landlord did not include Healthy Homes compliance statements in the tenancy agreement as required by s13 RTA. This is unlawful.
A landlord can be fined for each of the above breaches separately (up to $1,500.00 per breach).
I do not fine the landlord because these breaches were not identified in the tenant’s application. I accept the landlord did not lodge $1,400.00 with the Bond Centre because she thought she was entitled to keep $1,050.00 of it as rent in advance.
The landlord should see this decision as a chance for her to seek advice about tenancy laws. Conclusion
The landlord said that the tenant took the property as it was (she said a few times “you saw it and knew what it was like”). This is not the way tenancy law works.
A landlord is running a business making money from renting out property. It is the landlord’s responsibility to make sure the tenancy complies with the law.
I award the filing fee and suppress the tenant’s name. I do not suppress the landlord’s name. I also suppress details and information in the order relating to [The tenant’s friend] because she is not a party to the proceedings.
The amount lodged as bond is refunded to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5197512 — Exemplary damages at 6 Harlock Place, Huntly, Huntly 3700

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5197512 — Exemplary damages at 6 Harlock Place, Huntly, Huntly 3700

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the tenant renting the rear unit as separate premises?

Is the rear unit unlawful residential premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the tenant renting the rear unit as separate premises?

Is the rear unit unlawful residential premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions