What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5272939?

The tribunal order states: Sonja Doherty must pay Dellis Anne Ellison $3,527.00 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5272939?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Return Of Rent: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272939?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272939?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13312003-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5272939?

The tribunal order states: Sonja Doherty must pay Dellis Anne Ellison $3,527.00 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5272939?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Return Of Rent: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272939?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272939?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13312003-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

23 Moana View Road, Waikawa, Picton 7220 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5272939 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5272939 — net $3,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Return of rent	$3,500.00	Return of rent
Net award	$3,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,527.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5272939 — net $3,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Return of rent	$3,500.00	Return of rent
Net award	$3,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,527.00

Order

Sonja Doherty must pay Dellis Anne Ellison $3,527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The initial matter to determine was jurisdiction. That was found to exist and a declaration made by order on 8 August 2025.
The tenant sought compensation of $6,000 for claimed landlord failures pertaining to: a. No hot water in the kitchen, b. No working smoke alarms/detectors, c. Emergency exit blocked, d. Power points are not secure, e. Removed access to the laundry, f. Changes to the wifi password, g. Power being turned off, h. Unable to leave windows open over summer, and i. No extraction fan in the bathroom.
Later, during the hearings, a further claim regarding it being an unlawful residential premises was raised by the tenant. This was a question that can be raised by me on my own initiative and this was intended if not raised prior.
A previous order included an overview of the evidential burden and the civil standard for the benefit of both parties.
The landlord had indicated a counterclaim was pending but no application has been made to date.
This case turns on its facts. Some of the material facts are in dispute. Therefore, I must decide the facts. It is impracticable for me to recite all the evidence in detail and I will not do so unless it is necessary, but the parties should know it has been considered. Background
The parties met via a social media posting regarding accommodation. A meeting took place and a verbal agreement was reached. No written tenancy agreement was made.
The tenancy commenced 4 August 2024 and ended acrimoniously on 26 June 2025.
The premises here is a ground floor studio. Another dwelling exists on the same ground floor. The landlord lives on the top floor.
The premises was let semi-furnished, with utilities included.
The landlord advised the studio premises had previously been occupied under both long-term and short-term tenancies. The claims
The tenant raised a number of issues. I deal with each in turn:
No hot water in the kitchen. The premises had a small kitchenette with no plumbed hot water. This was understood by the tenant who used a kettle as required, or the hot water from the tap in the ensuite. The landlord submitted the situation was accepted by the tenant as renovations were planned by her.
No working smoke alarms/detectors. This claim was disputed by the landlord. Photos establish one in-situ but it is not proven that the landlord failed to ensure it worked at commencement or if the tenant had failed to replace the battery.
Emergency exit blocked. The main entry to the premises was through a ranch sliding door. There was an internal door that opened into the garage (used by the landlord). This is the door referenced by the tenant. Access through that door was possible but at times before and intentionally from December 2024 it was blocked from the other side by the landlord’s possession. The landlord claims criminal activity was a concern and reason for that action. She also stated there was an alternate emergency exit possible via a window.
A single exit is generally permitted for small, low-rise residential units like this ground floor studio, so long as the travel distance to the final exit is short and direct without obstacles. Appropriate building consenting assesses and addresses the adequateness of this.
Power points are not secure. The tenant claimed power points were loose. The landlord refuted this and stated they had been checked and fine at commencement.
Removed access to the laundry. The studio had no washing machine. The upstairs laundry was made available to the tenant, requiring entry into the owner’s area. The landlord later revoked access citing security concerns. The basis appears to be based on home camera evidence that the tenant entered without any laundry obvious. This is not compelling as a reason to remove access. While no legal requirement exists for the provision of such facilities within the studio, the unilateral removal of access by the landlord was a loss of amenity. I heard that the second ground floor unit had a washing machine on access was permitted by that tenant as required. The tenant stated this was awkward as it required accessing it via the other tenant’s personal space.
Changes to the wifi password. The house wifi password and access was inclusive in the tenancy. Around the last two weeks of the tenancy things became increasingly fractious and the landlord confirmed that the router password was changed but said the new password was withheld from the tenant due to unpaid rent. The landlord claims it was later provided when rent was paid. The tenancy was effectively over.
Power being turned off. I heard of ongoing power interruptions or loading. The tenant claims these increased later in the tenancy and were intentional acts by the landlord. The power board was within the owner’s upstairs home. If a residual circuit device (RCD) tripped it had to be manually reset. The issue of overloading may reflect the creation of three premises, with different needs and parallel demands for electricity greater than the original circuitry anticipated.
Unable to leave windows open over summer. The landlord and tenant had discussed and agreed it was a good idea to install security latches as the studio would get very hot. One small window could open (with net screen) but the tenant said that was insufficient. Being on the ground floor, leaving windows open without being secured was a safety risk for the tenant. The tenant said the landlord told her she would not spend any money on the house until she owned it under a relationship property dispute. I pointed out at the hearing that that was a separate issue and the tenant was paying $300 per week and had rightful expectations for such payment.
No extraction fan in the bathroom. This lacking was accepted by the landlord. She submitted she was aware of the Healthy Homes requirements but mistakenly had been working on the final date for all premises. The actual due date here was 120 days after the tenancy commenced. While not raised at the hearing, the same can be said regarding the heating requirement. The sole source of heating during this tenancy was from a plug-in heater of the tenant.
The landlord, as with other issues, claimed the tenant was aware an extractor fan was to be installed as part of the renovation planned. If this was genuinely intended, it should have been completed within the first 120 days of the tenancy. Any parallel consideration of the landlord regarding delayed capital improvements while the house was part of a relationship property dispute are of no bearing.
There was a pattern in the submissions of the landlord not wanting, or claiming financial pressure, to attend to maintenance or enhancements as required by statute, or as promised to the tenant. The tenant had a reasonable expectation of promised improvements during her tenure.
The tenant called her neighbouring tenant, Norm, as a witness. His tenancy ended at the same time. He confirmed his provision of access for the tenant to complete her laundry. He also experienced electrical outages, typically in the early morning when he returned from a night shift of work. He also confirmed that the three premises shared single rubbish and recycling bins.

Was the premises an unlawful residential premises?

I deal with this claim of unlawful residential premises as the determination on that provides an alternative remedy other than on a claim-by-claim basis for the other issues.
Section 78A RTA provides that the Tribunal can determine if the premises are unlawful residential premises. That term is defined in the Act as For the purposes of this Act, unlawful residential premises means residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but— (a)that 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); and (b)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.
The tenant has claimed that the property is an unlawful residential premise in that it there is no relevant consent for its use as a separate dwelling, nor evidence of appropriate building consenting or compliance for such use.
The landlord did not dispute this. There are local authority records available online in the public domain and the dates of the records available predate this ownership. The property last sold in 2014.
There are historic drawings of a planned extension and what appears to be, as drawn, a separation on the ground floor to create the garage and a bedroom. No drawing or plumbing for a kitchenette or bathroom appear. No expected or appropriate building consents appear on record.
There is no associated resource consenting recorded regarding any change to what is recorded as a single dwelling. The local authority provided rubbish and recycling bins were single, reflecting its recorded status.
The premises was an unlawful residential premises. It is not a consented dwelling and there is no evidence of appropriate building consents for the studio fixtures or amenities.
There were a number of claims that related directly to the failure to have a consented dwelling.

What is the appropriate remedy?

Where it finds unlawful residential premises under s 78A(4), the Tribunal may order the landlord to (i) repay the tenant all the rent they paid; or (ii) a lesser amount of rent repayment that it finds fair having regard to the special circumstances of the case, including the nature of the premises.
I consider that s 78A(4)(ii) should apply to this case because applying s 78A(4)(i) would be unfair to the landlord as the tenant has had some amenity of living at the property.
I must carefully weigh what amount of rent it is fair to deduct.
The special circumstances I must have regard to are not stated in the RTA except for the nature of the premises nor have the higher courts determined what are ‘special circumstances’ that the Tenancy Tribunal should take into account when determining the rent reduction.
However, the Tribunal has determined a number of claims under this provision and in line with those determinations I should take into account the following 1 : 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 and time she 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.
There should be some distinction between premises that were unlawful on the basis of some type of regulatory technicality, but which were otherwise safe, healthy homes, and those property which created risks to health and safety.
This premises fits somewhere between the two categories. Some statements by the landlord regarding secondary emergency exits appear legally correct. Certainty is not possible due to the lack of related building information, from her or on record. 1 See Tenant v Kranenburg [2021] NZTT 4298196, 4294929
In the present case, I consider that the amount ordered should be reduced to take into account the fact that the tenant has had the benefit of some utility from the occupation of the premises for some 47 weeks, noting the payment of $14,000 in rent for the privilege.
However, rather than make any separate orders for compensation for claims the tenant’s loss of quiet enjoyment, or a loss of amenity, these are considered in the extent to which the award of rent returned to the tenant should be reduced.
The landlord accused the tenant of being a money grabber with this application. I reflect on a number of deferred improvements (due by statutory obligation or promise) by her due to financial or other pressures, as well as her withholding services if rent was delayed. The dollar appears a constant factor in the landlord’s own actions.
I have considered the later deterioration in the relationship. Some adverse impacts were experienced nearer the end of the tenancy rather than through out.
I consider that a return of approximately 25% of rent paid is appropriate, taking into account the factors as set out above. Landlord claims
In her later written submission, the landlord raised again possible claims against the tenant. There assertions were not new and the need to lodge an application of her own was stressed sometime back.
This was acknowledged but she said she did not have the time or energy to pursue this. I accept she has other challenges as she advised. but in the absence of any application here I do not consider any landlord claims. Filing fee
Because Dellis Anne Ellison has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272939 — Tenancy dispute at 23 Moana View Road, Waikawa, Picton 7220

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272939 — Tenancy dispute at 23 Moana View Road, Waikawa, Picton 7220

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the premises an unlawful residential premises?

What is the appropriate remedy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the premises an unlawful residential premises?

What is the appropriate remedy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions