What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5246912?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5246912?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5246912?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5246912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12157132-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5246912?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5246912?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5246912?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5246912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12157132-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

113C Pebblebrooke Road, Mangawhai 0573 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5246912 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

The dispute relates to Ms Meszaros and Mr Fielding’s occupancy of a relocated house at 113C Pebblebrooke Road.
Mr Kelly (Beardall Trustee Ltd) engaged Mr Fielding (a builder) to work on the house. Mr Fielding lived on site with Ms Meszaros in a caravan. Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros were also given the right to use a garage / shed. No money changed hands under this arrangement.
Mr Fielding eventually got full time work.
In or around early November 2024, Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros began living in the house. In early January 2025, they began paying $300 per week to Beardall Trustee Ltd. The circumstances around these events are disputed, as discussed in more detail below.
On 16 March 2025, the landlord gave a 90-day notice to end the tenancy on 14 June. Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros found another place to live, and moved out in April.
The application seeks a refund of all of the rent paid ($3,600.00) on the grounds that the premises were unlawful residential premises.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 23 July 2025. Ms Meszaros and Mr Kelly (representing Beardall Trustee Ltd) participated in the hearing. Law
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies to all residential tenancies. 1 A residential tenancy is the right to occupy residential premises in exchange for rent. The definition of rent includes anything of value, including services (work).
Unlawful residential premises are premises that are used for occupation by a person as a place of residence but: 2 a. They cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person; and b. The landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure there is no legal impediment to occupation, or the landlord failed to comply with all legal requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety.
If the Tenancy Tribunal finds that the premises were unlawful residential premises, the Tribunal may order that the landlord pay to the tenant: a. All of the rent paid by the tenant over the period during which the premises were unlawful; or b. All of the rent paid “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”. 3 Findings
The parties disagree about how Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros came to occupy the house. They also disagree about what the $300 per week payment was for.
Ms Meszaros said that: a. It was always understood that they would move into the house. 1 Section 4 RTA. Some types of arrangements are specifically excluded, see s 5 RTA 2 Section 78A(2) RTA 3 Section 78A(4)(a) RTA b. Mr Kelly commented to them that the house was nearly finished, and he thought that they would probably move in around Labour Day weekend. c. Mr Kelly began charging them rent because they had moved into the house, even though he knew that the premises did not have a Code of Compliance.
Mr Kelly said that: a. He did not expect Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros to move into the house before it had a CCC and he did not invite them to move in. They moved in of their own accord. b. He asked them to pay $300 per week as “ground rent” for having their caravan on the premises and using the garage. The value that he previously received for granting that right to use the premises (Mr Fielding’s work on the house) decreased significantly when Mr Fielding took on full time work. Mr Kelly thought that Mr Fielding was earning good money, and it was appropriate for him to pay ground rent. c. He did not want them living in the house before it was signed off, so he issued a 90-day notice.
I am satisfied that there was a residential tenancy and that the RTA applied to it.
Although it is not clear that Mr Kelly explicitly granted Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros the right to occupy the house, he became aware that they were occupying it by January 2025 (at the very latest) and he took no steps to tell Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros that they could not live in the house.
In my view the $300/wk is more likely to be rent for the house rather than ‘ground rent’ for the caravan and shed. The timing of Mr Kelly requiring that payment coincides with when Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros moved in.
I am satisfied that the premises were unlawful residential premises during the tenancy. This was not disputed by Mr Kelly.
My finding is that it is not appropriate to refund all of the rent paid during the tenancy in this instance. There are “special circumstances” that are relevant in this instance, in particular: a. Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros were very aware of the physical condition of the property. b. Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros chose to move in. They did not need to. They could have continued to live in their caravan. c. Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros moved into the house in early November 2024. They moved out on 12 April 2025. The tenancy lasted about 23 weeks. Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros paid $3,600.00 in rent, which equates to approximately $150 per week for the duration of their stay. d. For that payment, they also received the continuing right keep their caravan at the property and use the shed / garage, even though the amount of work on the house that Mr Fielding provided reduced due to his other work commitments.
Having regard to these special considerations, my finding is that the total amount of rent that the tenants paid during the tenancy reasonably reflects the value that they received. It would be unjust to require the landlords to pay back any of the rent to the tenants.
Therefore, the application must be dismissed. Name suppression
The tenants sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression to any party that is substantially successful in the proceedings. The tenants have not been substantially successful in this instance.
The Tribunal has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party, having regard to the interests of the party and to the public interest. The Tenancy Tribunal is an open court, and there is a public interest in transparent proceedings. The Tribunal usually only exercises its discretion to grant name suppression to unsuccessful parties if there genuine personal safety concerns with publication of the person’s name. So such concerns are present in this instance.
The request for name suppression is not granted.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

The dispute relates to Ms Meszaros and Mr Fielding’s occupancy of a relocated house at 113C Pebblebrooke Road.
Mr Kelly (Beardall Trustee Ltd) engaged Mr Fielding (a builder) to work on the house. Mr Fielding lived on site with Ms Meszaros in a caravan. Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros were also given the right to use a garage / shed. No money changed hands under this arrangement.
Mr Fielding eventually got full time work.
In or around early November 2024, Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros began living in the house. In early January 2025, they began paying $300 per week to Beardall Trustee Ltd. The circumstances around these events are disputed, as discussed in more detail below.
On 16 March 2025, the landlord gave a 90-day notice to end the tenancy on 14 June. Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros found another place to live, and moved out in April.
The application seeks a refund of all of the rent paid ($3,600.00) on the grounds that the premises were unlawful residential premises.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 23 July 2025. Ms Meszaros and Mr Kelly (representing Beardall Trustee Ltd) participated in the hearing. Law
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies to all residential tenancies. 1 A residential tenancy is the right to occupy residential premises in exchange for rent. The definition of rent includes anything of value, including services (work).
Unlawful residential premises are premises that are used for occupation by a person as a place of residence but: 2 a. They cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person; and b. The landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure there is no legal impediment to occupation, or the landlord failed to comply with all legal requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety.
If the Tenancy Tribunal finds that the premises were unlawful residential premises, the Tribunal may order that the landlord pay to the tenant: a. All of the rent paid by the tenant over the period during which the premises were unlawful; or b. All of the rent paid “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”. 3 Findings
The parties disagree about how Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros came to occupy the house. They also disagree about what the $300 per week payment was for.
Ms Meszaros said that: a. It was always understood that they would move into the house. 1 Section 4 RTA. Some types of arrangements are specifically excluded, see s 5 RTA 2 Section 78A(2) RTA 3 Section 78A(4)(a) RTA b. Mr Kelly commented to them that the house was nearly finished, and he thought that they would probably move in around Labour Day weekend. c. Mr Kelly began charging them rent because they had moved into the house, even though he knew that the premises did not have a Code of Compliance.
Mr Kelly said that: a. He did not expect Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros to move into the house before it had a CCC and he did not invite them to move in. They moved in of their own accord. b. He asked them to pay $300 per week as “ground rent” for having their caravan on the premises and using the garage. The value that he previously received for granting that right to use the premises (Mr Fielding’s work on the house) decreased significantly when Mr Fielding took on full time work. Mr Kelly thought that Mr Fielding was earning good money, and it was appropriate for him to pay ground rent. c. He did not want them living in the house before it was signed off, so he issued a 90-day notice.
I am satisfied that there was a residential tenancy and that the RTA applied to it.
Although it is not clear that Mr Kelly explicitly granted Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros the right to occupy the house, he became aware that they were occupying it by January 2025 (at the very latest) and he took no steps to tell Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros that they could not live in the house.
In my view the $300/wk is more likely to be rent for the house rather than ‘ground rent’ for the caravan and shed. The timing of Mr Kelly requiring that payment coincides with when Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros moved in.
I am satisfied that the premises were unlawful residential premises during the tenancy. This was not disputed by Mr Kelly.
My finding is that it is not appropriate to refund all of the rent paid during the tenancy in this instance. There are “special circumstances” that are relevant in this instance, in particular: a. Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros were very aware of the physical condition of the property. b. Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros chose to move in. They did not need to. They could have continued to live in their caravan. c. Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros moved into the house in early November 2024. They moved out on 12 April 2025. The tenancy lasted about 23 weeks. Mr Fielding and Ms Meszaros paid $3,600.00 in rent, which equates to approximately $150 per week for the duration of their stay. d. For that payment, they also received the continuing right keep their caravan at the property and use the shed / garage, even though the amount of work on the house that Mr Fielding provided reduced due to his other work commitments.
Having regard to these special considerations, my finding is that the total amount of rent that the tenants paid during the tenancy reasonably reflects the value that they received. It would be unjust to require the landlords to pay back any of the rent to the tenants.
Therefore, the application must be dismissed. Name suppression
The tenants sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression to any party that is substantially successful in the proceedings. The tenants have not been substantially successful in this instance.
The Tribunal has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party, having regard to the interests of the party and to the public interest. The Tenancy Tribunal is an open court, and there is a public interest in transparent proceedings. The Tribunal usually only exercises its discretion to grant name suppression to unsuccessful parties if there genuine personal safety concerns with publication of the person’s name. So such concerns are present in this instance.
The request for name suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5246912 — Tenancy dispute at 113C Pebblebrooke Road, Mangawhai 0573

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5246912 — Tenancy dispute at 113C Pebblebrooke Road, Mangawhai 0573

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions