What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297682 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 5297682?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Of Rent: $9,300.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297682?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297682?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12633342-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297682 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 5297682?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Of Rent: $9,300.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297682?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297682?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12633342-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room B3, 7 Queens Drive, Kilbirnie, Wellington 6022, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5297682 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297682 — net $14,127.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimbursement of rent	$9,300.00	Reimbursement of rent
Exemplary damages: giving notice without grounds	$2,200.00	giving notice without grounds
Compensation: general damages	$2,000.00	general damages
Exemplary damages: tenancy agreement breach	$600.00	tenancy agreement breach
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,127.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$14,127.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297682 — net $14,127.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimbursement of rent	$9,300.00	Reimbursement of rent
Exemplary damages: giving notice without grounds	$2,200.00	giving notice without grounds
Compensation: general damages	$2,000.00	general damages
Exemplary damages: tenancy agreement breach	$600.00	tenancy agreement breach
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,127.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$14,127.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
International Muslim Association Of New Zealand Incorporated must pay [The tenant/s] $14,127.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The tenancy was not a boarding house tenancy.
International Muslim Association Of New Zealand Incorporatedis restrained from a breach of section 60AA RTA for a period of two years.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant and his lawyer attended the hearing. Mr Saeed, the representative for the landlord (IMANZ), attended for 30 minutes and left when I declined his request for an adjournment.
This tenancy relates to a ‘sleeping room’ rented to the tenant in June 2023. The parties signed a single page “Rental Agreement” and the tenant paid $200 a week to live in a room in the basement of the mosque located in Kilbirnie. The agreement was valid for three months and could be renewed by consent. The room had a bed, a desk and chair, and storage. The tenant had access to a shared bathroom and shared kitchen. The space immediately outside the sleeping room was used by the mosque community as a shared dining space. A second rental agreement was signed 19 April 2024 for the same room and the same rent.
Fire and Emergency had a call out to the mosque on 7 March 2025 and carried out a follow up inspection together with the Wellington City Council (WCC) a few days later. The landlord gave the tenant written notice to move out on 11 March 2025 because “no sleep ins are allowed in the masjid [mosque] till building usage classification is changed”. The tenant has filed an application challenging the lawfulness of the premises and is claiming compensation and exemplary damages. The tenant has also asked the Tribunal to make an order restraining the landlord from future breaches. The issues I have to decide include: • Should I allow an adjournment? • Was the tenancy premises unlawful premises? • Did the landlord give notice without grounds? • Did the landlord change the locks and enter the room without notice or consent? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Did the tenancy agreement breach the Residential Tenancies Act 1986? • Should I allow compensation? • Was the tenancy a boarding house tenancy? • Should I make an order restraining the landlord? • Can the Tribunal order interest on the money the landlord has to pay?

Should I allow an adjournment?

Mr Saeed submitted that the landlord received the documents by post three working days before the hearing and the landlord had not been able to get legal advice in time for the hearing. He said it would be unfair to have the hearing when the tenant has legal representation, and the landlord is still searching for advice. He said to go ahead with the hearing would mean an unfair process, which would prejudice the landlord.
I have considered the notes on the file. The notes show the landlord was first notified about the hearing on 24 July 2025. On 6 August the landlord followed up with Tenancy Services and an email address for receiving documents was confirmed. The application and all the supporting documents were emailed for a second time. The landlord called again to say the email was received but no attachments. All the documents were emailed again on 20 August 2025 and a duplicate set were posted as a backup on 21 August 2025. The landlord said they only received the posted documents three working days before the hearing and Mr Saeed emailed the registry the same day asking for an adjournment. The registry did not have a record of his request for an adjournment.
Taken together it seems likely to me that the landlord received the attachments emailed on 20 August 2025, and possibly the documents were served earlier than that. This means there was time for the landlord to speak with a lawyer and prepare for the hearing. The request for an adjournment was not allowed and Mr Saeed left the hearing.

Was the tenancy premises unlawful premises?

Section 78A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a building being used as a place of residence is unlawful residential premises if the premises cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord’s failure to ensure there was no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises has caused the occupation to be unlawful.
The tenant provided emails between himself and the WCC, sent after he was told he could no longer sleep at the mosque. In the email dated 1 August 2025 Macky Rogers, who is a compliance officer for the Council, sets out that: • the WCC knew the mosque was being used for sleeping which was not permitted because the building was never consented for sleeping. • the WCC were aware the mosque was being used for accommodation in February 2024 and at the time the WCC asked the owners to stop allowing people to sleep at the mosque. • In 2025 the WCC directed the owner to stop using the mosque for sleeping as this is not permitted and the owner said it was hard to get the tenants to leave. • The WCC inspected the property on 31 July 2025 and confirmed all sleeping activity has ceased, which means no further investigation will be undertaken by the Council.
It is clear to me from this information the mosque could not used to house the tenant. I am persuaded by the tenant’s submission that the landlord knew in February 2024 that the mosque could not be used to provide accommodation. Renting a room to the tenant was in breach of the Building Act 2004. Continuing to rent the room after the WCC had told the landlord to cease means the landlord allowed the premises to be used for a tenancy, despite there being a legal impediment to the occupation of the premises. The landlord continued to accept rent from the tenant for the room and the use of the kitchen and bathroom facilities until March 2025.
Section 78A(3) RTA provides that the Tribunal may order the landlord to refund the whole of the sum paid as rent for the period of time the premises were unlawful premises, or refund the rent less any amount it is fair to deduct because of special circumstances, including the nature of the premises.
What constitutes special circumstances is not set out in the RTA, but these are regularly considered by Adjudicators: • The landlords’ motivation for renting the property and their conduct during the tenancy. It seems reasonable to draw the conclusion that the landlord was motivated by money. The rent was $200 a week which is more than a contribution to the costs for living in the room. There is no suggestion from the rental agreement that the room was made available because of religious reasons or because of hardship. In fact, the agreements even mention healthy homes compliance and the second agreement gives the landlord a right to increase rent. There is no mention in the second agreement of the accommodation being temporary or for a short term. While not the subject of this application, there is credible evidence that other tenants also lived in similar rooms at the mosque. The landlord’s conduct during the tenancy was not discussed, but the landlord knew at the start of last year that there was no building consent for residential use, and there have been serious breaches of the RTA since the WCC visit. • The tenant’s motivation for renting the property and bringing the claim. There is nothing in the documentation or the submissions which suggests the tenant knew he could take advantage of the situation. The tenant rented the room until the landlord refused access. He filed his application within weeks. • The length of time the tenant lived in the property. Living at the mosque suited the tenant. He prays five times a day and living on site made this easier. His room was big enough for his belongings. He obviously found the accommodation suitable for his needs because he was lived there from June 2023 – March 2025, which is around 90 weeks. The only reason he moved out is because the landlord told him he could no longer live there. • The benefits the landlords received in renting the property. The weekly rent was $200. The tenant provided bank information. The tenant’s submission is that $18,600 was paid in total. This takes into account the rent returned by the landlord at the end of the tenancy. • The benefits the tenant received in renting the property. Living at the mosque suited the tenant. He had shelter and a safe place to store his belongings. It seems likely the room was adequate for sleeping. The space immediately outside the bedroom was set up for use as a dining space for large gatherings. The kitchen was set up for preparing food for large gatherings and was shared with the community. The toilets and showers were accessible by key and I have not seen photos of these. • The seriousness of the regulatory breaches making the premises unlawful. I find this was a mid-scale breach. The tenant has made submissions that there was inadequate fire protection, as well as inadequate kitchen and bathing facilities for residential use and this seems likely to me. The building was suitable for religious and office work and so this is less serious than someone renting, for example, a garage or an industrial unit. However, I find the living situation to be significantly different from a house which is missing building or resource consent for some technical reason. • The detriment or loss the tenants suffered. This tenancy ended very badly. The tenant was affected both emotionally and financially. • The purpose of s 78A RTA in ensuring landlords do not unfairly profit from unlawful premises. It seems most likely to me the landlord profited unfairly from the tenancy. The tenant entered into the tenancy agreement in good faith. From the start of 2024 the landlord knew he could not rent out the room to the tenant. I also find the landlord should have checked with the Council before renting any of the rooms because the living situation is so unusual that the landlord should have checked the law first. • The public interest in discouraging tenancies of unlawful premises. The landlord should refund the rent as a disincentive to future breaches and as a warning to other landlords to check there is no legal impediment to the occupation of premises for residential purposes.
Taking all of these into account I find the landlord should refund the rent to the tenant, less an amount deducted as special circumstances. In deciding this amount I have carefully weighed the detriment to the tenant in terms of safety and amenity, and the need to discourage landlords from renting premises that cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes. I order the landlord refund $9,300 to the tenant.

Did the landlord give a notice without grounds?

The tenant claims that the landlord breached its obligations under section 60AA RTA which provides that a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so. 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 $6500. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
On 10 March 2025 the landlord told the tenant he could no longer sleep in the mosque. Written notice was delivered by WhatsApp the next day and said “Please by advised as per Council notice, no sleep ins are allowed in the masjid till building usage classification is changed.” A notice was put on the door stating “No Sleep Ins Allowed Any violation will result in prosecution and a trespass notice”.
The tenant said that from 10 March to 1 April he slept in temporary accommodation including in the basement at another mosque. He returned to live in his room on 1 April. A week later he was given further notices to terminate the tenancy. Several written notices with different offers and timeframes were given to the tenant during March and April. The tenant’s submission is that the landlord gave notices it should not have given, and this was significant because there was no formal notice from the WCC requiring immediate termination of the tenancy.
Section 56A RTA allows a tenant of unlawful premises to give two days notice to end the tenancy. Landlords who rent unlawful premises must apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy, but this was not done here. I accept the landlord had to act after it was told by the WCC to stop people sleeping in the building. However the correct approach was to make an application to the Tribunal.
I am persuaded the landlord gave many notices to end the tenancy instead of applying to the Tribunal. I find the landlord 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) RTA.
I find the landlord acted intentionally in giving the notice. Failing to get legal advice at the point the WCC issued its warning was intentional. The effect for the tenant was a period of upheaval, uncertainty, and stress. It is in tenants interests that landlords follow the RTA when giving notice and there is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages to encourage compliance. I find $2,200 is a reasonable amount for the landlord to pay because I am not aware of any previous orders for the same breach.

Did the landlord change the locks and enter the room without notice or consent?

The tenant claims the landlord entered his room without consent or notice and changed the locks. This happened while he was at prayers on 27 April 2025. A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. See section 46 and 48 and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant signed a tenancy agreement with an established boarding house dated 23 April 2025. There is a submission the tenant felt he was pressured to sign the tenancy agreement. Nonetheless he did not sleep at the mosque from 23 April and he only used his room there during the day. I find the tenancy ended when the tenant signed the boarding house agreement. This means that any entry and change of the locks after 23 April was not a breach of the RTA. These claims are dismissed.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant claims the landlord harassed him. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 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. See section 38(2) and (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose. This suggests there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them.
The tenant submitted that there was a pattern of behaviour from the landlord which led to harassment. He said the landlord returned rent so it could end the tenancy because of rent arrears, forced the tenant to sleep in a storage room, prevented the tenant from using lights at night, forced the tenant to sleep on a mattress in the basement of another mosque which had no cooking or washing facilities, put notices on the door saying he could not sleep in his room, texted to say he could not sleep in his room, pressured him to leave for the good of the religious community, threatened to contact the police, refused access to his room, yelled at the tenant, and changed the locks.
I have considered the list and I am not persuaded I should allow compensation and exemplary damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment. The landlord has been ordered to pay a penalty for all the breaches relating to giving notice without grounds. Refusing access happened after the end of the tenancy. All claims relating to a breach of quiet enjoyment are dismissed.

Did the tenancy agreement breach the RTA?

The two tenancy agreements contain basic information about the room, rent and start dates. It is interesting that both agreements mention the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and state as far as they are aware the room complies with the “healthy homes criteria – insulation, ventilation and heating”.
Under s 13A(1CA) RTA landlords must include in the tenancy agreement a signed statement that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations. Section 13A(1F) RTA provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include a healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement or if the statement includes anything that the landlord knows to be false or misleading. The Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $900 for knowingly providing false or misleading information.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. The same considerations apply when deciding on exemplary damages. It seems most likely to me the landlord acted intentionally in providing an inadequate tenancy agreement, because the landlord clearly knew there were rules around the HHS. I find the statement that the room satisfied the healthy homes criteria to be false and misleading. The affect for the tenant was most likely a misunderstanding of what constitutes a valid tenancy in New Zealand. It is in tenants interests that renting is a fair process and there is public interest in landlords paying a penalty. I allow $600 in exemplary damages because the landlord had two opportunities to check the law and get it right.

Should I allow compensation?

The tenant has claimed general damages for stress and emotional harm. This compensation can be awarded in the Tribunal. The amounts are now higher than those specified in the lawyer’s submission. In Tenants v Singh [2022] NZTT 4315225 the three bands for compensation were described as:
I am mindful that I have not heard from the landlord. Nonetheless, from the verbal evidence and the supporting documentation it seems most likely that the landlord acted in a way that caused inconvenience, worry, stress, tension, and anxiety. This is because after the WCC visit on 10 March 2025 the landlord asked the tenant to sleep in a storage area, arranged for the tenant to sleep in the storage area in another mosque, threatened to trespass the tenant, and implied that the tenant’s behaviour in not moving out was letting their community down. I note that the lines between landlord and religious leader were blurred, but the landlord chose to rent the room in a mosque, so this was a foreseeable consequence.
I am persuaded there was distress in line with band B and I order the landlord pay the tenant $2000 in compensation.

Was the tenancy a boarding house tenancy?

The tenant has asked for a declaration as to whether the landlord and the tenant could have had a boarding house tenancy. Having seen the photos of the facilities and the emails from the WCC I can confirm the tenancy was not a boarding house tenancy.

Should I make an order restraining the landlord?

There is an application that the Tribunal make an order restraining the landlord from future breaches. Section 109A RTA provides that if the Tribunal makes an order for exemplary damages under section 109, an order can also be made restraining a landlord from committing a further unlawful act of the same kind. The two awards of exemplary damages here are because the landlord gave notice without having grounds and failure to include a HHS statement in the tenancy agreement.
I have considered the number of notices the landlord gave the tenant in an attempt to mitigate the landlord’s own failure to provide a lawful tenancy. All of these caused stress and uncertainty for the tenant. I am persuaded the landlord should be restrained from a breach of section 60AA RTA for a period of two years.
The landlord is advised to get legal advice about the consequences of breaching a restraining order.

Can the Tribunal order interest on the money the landlord has to pay?

The last claim is for an order for interest on the money I have ordered the landlord pay to the tenant. The tenant seeks an order under section 78(1)(h) RTA, which allows the Tribunal to make ancillary orders regarding contracts. The submission is that section 78(1)(h) would allow the Tribunal to make an order for interest to accrue as allowed for in the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 (IOMCA). This is despite section 6 of the IOMCA specifically excluding tribunals. The submission notes that there is limited case law and states: The policy reasons for allowing interest to accrue as a penalty for late payment is still very relevant for orders of the Tenancy Tribunal. The Tribunal’s jurisdictional limit is up to $100,000. A judgment creditor would suffer a significant loss is interest was not paid on debt at the upper end of this limit.
I have considered this submission and recent Tenancy Tribunal orders where similar claims for interest have been made. In August 2025 under application [2025] NZTT 9059924 Adjudicator Woodhouse, who is the Deputy Principal Adjudicator, made an order dismissing a claim for interest and said: I note there is legislation that governs orders for the payment of interest and that is the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016. Even if an order for interest could be made under that legislation, the legislation expressly states that it does not apply to Tribunals, so interest could not be ordered based on that authority.
I am not persuaded I should use a general statement in section 78(1)(h) RTA to overrule a specific statement excluding tribunals in section 6 of the IOMCA. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There is an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA. 39.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because the tenant is the most successful party.
The landlord’s name and the tenancy address will be published because there is public interest when landlords rent unlawful premises.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should I allow an adjournment?

Was the tenancy premises unlawful premises?

Did the landlord give a notice without grounds?

Did the landlord change the locks and enter the room without notice or consent?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Did the tenancy agreement breach the RTA?

Should I allow compensation?

Was the tenancy a boarding house tenancy?

Should I make an order restraining the landlord?

Can the Tribunal order interest on the money the landlord has to pay?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should I allow an adjournment?

Was the tenancy premises unlawful premises?

Did the landlord give a notice without grounds?

Did the landlord change the locks and enter the room without notice or consent?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Did the tenancy agreement breach the RTA?

Should I allow compensation?

Was the tenancy a boarding house tenancy?

Should I make an order restraining the landlord?

Can the Tribunal order interest on the money the landlord has to pay?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions