What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5216153 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

How much money was awarded in case 5216153?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5216153?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5216153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11932047-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5216153 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

How much money was awarded in case 5216153?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5216153?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5216153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11932047-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 1, 184 Tinakori Road, Thorndon, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5216153 — Exemplary damages

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name.
Aloha Property Management Limited As Agent For Owner has not made a boarding house agreement with Yanina Belén Tarela and therefore Yanina Tarela has no liablity for any amount of rent above the amount charged under the flatmate agreement Yanina Tarela had with the sole tenant, Emma A.
The claim for exemplary damages regarding an attempt to enter the tenant’s room is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
The applicant began living at 184 Tinakori Road, Thorndon, Wellington in January 2025 after signing a flatmate agreement with Emma, the sole tenant who lived there. Emma’s tenancy was with the owner, Escher Holdings Limited. Emma terminated her tenancy with the landlord on 31 January.
I am satisfied that when Emma terminated her tenancy with Escher Holdings Limited, the contracts for occupancy between Emma and all the flatmates also came to an end. The reason is that; (i) it is not possible to have a flatmate agreement with a person who does not reside at the property and (ii) Emma’s legal standing regarding the premises came to an end when her tenancy ended.
I am satisfied that after Emma terminated her tenancy and the landlord did not replace her with another tenant, the premises effectively became a boarding house. The premises contains at least 6 bedrooms along with facilities for communal use by the occupants and was occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time.
The landlord did not request the occupants to give possession of their rooms to the landlord following Emma’s departure. It follows that after Emma departed and flatmate contracts came to an end, each person that remained at 184 Tinakori Road with the landlord’s permission effectively became a tenant in a boarding house.
On or about 26 February Naomi, a property manager from Aloha Property Management Limited, attempted to have the occupants sign a flatmate agreement with her named as the property manager. However a property manager who does not live at the premises cannot have a flatmate agreement with the occupants.
I am satisfied that because there was no new legal tenancy agreement put in place by the landlord reflecting that the premises had become a boarding house, the rent agreed to under the flatmate agreement should be the rent the applicant should pay until she gives possession of her room to the landlord in two days time. Should exemplary damages be ordered regarding an unlawful entry into the applicant’s room?
The applicant claims that the property manager attempted to enter her room without notice and without her consent. She stated that the property manager knocked on the door. The applicant had a broken toe at the time and did not answer the door. The applicant said that when she didn’t answer the door, the property manager began using the keypad on the door that enables it to be unlocked.
The property manager does not dispute that she knocked and that the person with her used keys on the keypad. They wanted to arrange a meeting with her. Naomi said that the person with her used the keys on the keypad because they knew the tenant was in the room and believed using the keypad would result in her answering the door.
The question is whether this conduct by the property manager amounts to committing an unlawful act.
Section 66T Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that it is an unlawful act for a landlord (a) to enter into a tenant’s room where the correct notice has not been given to the tenant or (b) by the use or threat of force by the landlord to enter or attempt to enter a tenant’s room.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not enter the tenant’s room. The applicant answered the door. The landlord did not force entry into the room.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not “use or threaten force of entry” on the day the incident happened or any previous day.
The applicant has not proved that the landlord breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provisions regarding entry to a tenant’s room and therefore the claim for exemplary damages for an unlawful act must be dismissed. Suppression
The Tribunal may, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (s.95A(4). I am satisfied that there is no interest in publishing the tenant’s name.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name.
Aloha Property Management Limited As Agent For Owner has not made a boarding house agreement with Yanina Belén Tarela and therefore Yanina Tarela has no liablity for any amount of rent above the amount charged under the flatmate agreement Yanina Tarela had with the sole tenant, Emma A.
The claim for exemplary damages regarding an attempt to enter the tenant’s room is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
The applicant began living at 184 Tinakori Road, Thorndon, Wellington in January 2025 after signing a flatmate agreement with Emma, the sole tenant who lived there. Emma’s tenancy was with the owner, Escher Holdings Limited. Emma terminated her tenancy with the landlord on 31 January.
I am satisfied that when Emma terminated her tenancy with Escher Holdings Limited, the contracts for occupancy between Emma and all the flatmates also came to an end. The reason is that; (i) it is not possible to have a flatmate agreement with a person who does not reside at the property and (ii) Emma’s legal standing regarding the premises came to an end when her tenancy ended.
I am satisfied that after Emma terminated her tenancy and the landlord did not replace her with another tenant, the premises effectively became a boarding house. The premises contains at least 6 bedrooms along with facilities for communal use by the occupants and was occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time.
The landlord did not request the occupants to give possession of their rooms to the landlord following Emma’s departure. It follows that after Emma departed and flatmate contracts came to an end, each person that remained at 184 Tinakori Road with the landlord’s permission effectively became a tenant in a boarding house.
On or about 26 February Naomi, a property manager from Aloha Property Management Limited, attempted to have the occupants sign a flatmate agreement with her named as the property manager. However a property manager who does not live at the premises cannot have a flatmate agreement with the occupants.
I am satisfied that because there was no new legal tenancy agreement put in place by the landlord reflecting that the premises had become a boarding house, the rent agreed to under the flatmate agreement should be the rent the applicant should pay until she gives possession of her room to the landlord in two days time. Should exemplary damages be ordered regarding an unlawful entry into the applicant’s room?
The applicant claims that the property manager attempted to enter her room without notice and without her consent. She stated that the property manager knocked on the door. The applicant had a broken toe at the time and did not answer the door. The applicant said that when she didn’t answer the door, the property manager began using the keypad on the door that enables it to be unlocked.
The property manager does not dispute that she knocked and that the person with her used keys on the keypad. They wanted to arrange a meeting with her. Naomi said that the person with her used the keys on the keypad because they knew the tenant was in the room and believed using the keypad would result in her answering the door.
The question is whether this conduct by the property manager amounts to committing an unlawful act.
Section 66T Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that it is an unlawful act for a landlord (a) to enter into a tenant’s room where the correct notice has not been given to the tenant or (b) by the use or threat of force by the landlord to enter or attempt to enter a tenant’s room.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not enter the tenant’s room. The applicant answered the door. The landlord did not force entry into the room.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not “use or threaten force of entry” on the day the incident happened or any previous day.
The applicant has not proved that the landlord breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provisions regarding entry to a tenant’s room and therefore the claim for exemplary damages for an unlawful act must be dismissed. Suppression
The Tribunal may, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (s.95A(4). I am satisfied that there is no interest in publishing the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5216153 — Exemplary damages at Room 1, 184 Tinakori Road, Thorndon, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5216153 — Exemplary damages at Room 1, 184 Tinakori Road, Thorndon, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions