What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312840 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 5312840?

Compensation: $1,864.29 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312840?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12729217-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312840 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 5312840?

Compensation: $1,864.29 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312840?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12729217-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit6, 173 Chester Street East, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5312840 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5312840 — net $2,792.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent repayment	$1,864.29	Rent repayment
Exemplary damages	$900.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,792.28
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,792.28

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5312840 — net $2,792.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent repayment	$1,864.29	Rent repayment
Exemplary damages	$900.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,792.28
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,792.28

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Quintessential Property Management Limited must pay [the tenants] $2,792.28 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay bond of $800.00 (5546491-003) to [the tenants] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
The premises are one of seven terraced town houses. They are on three floors with a garage at the rear.
They were converted in 2000 from a warehouse used by Wards, the brewers, for storing their beer.
The tenants’ provided the Council property file from which it appears that the developers were granted consent in 2003 for the conversion for mixed commercial and residential use. The ground floor of the houses was for commercial use with the upper floors for residential use. That was in keeping with the use and character of the area. There is no evidence that the original consent was materially varied.
The plans on the Council file show that the premises were designed to have office space on the ground floor at the front of the building, living, kitchen, dining and a bedroom on the first floor and two bedrooms on the second floor. In addition, there is an open area in the roof space, accessed by stairs, intended for storage.
Access to the office space is through a door from the street. There is no direct access from the office space to the upper floors. Access to the upper floors is via a door built into the garage door, through the garage and upstairs. From the office space, there is a door accessing the garage.
The tenants occupied the premisses from 14 May 2025. Initially, they sublet from one of the then tenants with the knowledge and consent of the landlord. They then signed a variation of the existing tenancy agreement whereby the subletting tenant was released, and the tenants joined the remaining three tenants on the tenancy.
The original tenancy was for a fixed term until February 2026, but the tenants were not made aware of that. The variation refers to the terms of the original tenancy, but the tenants were not given a complete copy of it.
The subletting tenant initially occupied the space in the roof and the other three tenants had a bedroom each. That tenant then moved into the ground floor space.
The tenancy ended on 1 October 2025 after the tenant gave 21 days notice of termination. The landlords initially tried to hold the tenant to the fixed term, but they conceded that because the tenants were not made aware of it, they should accept the tenants’ notice. They were correct to do so because the default position is that a tenancy is periodic. Parties
The application names Quinovic as the respondent. The tenancy agreement names the owners of the premises as the landlords and Quinovic as their agents. Normally the landlords would be named as the respondent in those circumstances. But Quinovic confirmed that they are content to be named as the respondent in the Tribunal’s order. I will refer to them as the landlord.
I note that the owners have been fully aware of this application, including making enquires as to whether the tenants could lawfully occupy the office space for residential purposes. They provided some evidence in that respect.
The application names the other three tenants as applicants. They have made it clear that they do not support the application, and they want no part of it. That is understandable because the application concerns the office space which did not affect them. I have therefore not named them in the order, and they will not receive a copy of it. The Tenancy
Because the tenants agreed to a periodic tenancy and the other tenants had a fixed term tenancy, All the tenants cannot be parties to the same tenancy.
As we know, the tenants were able to terminate their tenancy by giving notice. The other tenants were not able to do that. That could leave the other tenants alone as tenants at the full rent without recourse to the tenants for their share of the rent. The other tenants would, in my view, be entitled to hold the landlord responsible for that situation. The situation would be incompatible with fundamental tenancy principles.
I therefore find that there were two tenancy agreements. The tenants’ agreement provided for them to have exclusive occupation of the office space and shared use of the common areas and facilities upstairs. In practical terms involving use of the premises, nothing changes.
Whether this has any effect on the tenants’ application I consider below. Claims Bond
The landlord agreed that the bond should be paid to the tenants, and I have therefore ordered it to be paid to them. Heating
There was no heating in the office space and the tenants provided their own small heater that they said was not very effective at heating the space. They asked the landlord for a heater, but they declined to provide one.
As I have said, I see this tenancy as one that entitled the use the shared spaces and facilities. In that sense, it is no different from a joint tenancy where tenants each have their own bedrooms or, indeed, where there are individual tenancies with shared use of common areas. In both cases. The landlord’s obligation is to provide compliant heating in the main living space. There is no obligation to provide heating in bedrooms.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Breach of Privacy
The owners discussed the tenants with a friend who worked with one of the tenants. The connection was their employment. The friend then mentioned it to the tenant. The tenant complains that the owners shared the tenants’ personal information with the owners which was a breach of their privacy.
This is the sort of thing that happens in life. The owners saw the work connection and mentioned it to the friend. I am no expert on privacy law, but I don’t see the problem with that.
In any case the connection is not enough to make this an interference with the tenant’s privacy in relation to the use of the premises, which is what the Tribunal is concerned with. If it was a breach of privacy, it falls under the Privacy Act 2020 and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction under that Act.
This claim is therefore dismissed The Status and Condition of the Premises
The tenants’ claims for compensation, exemplary damages and rent repayment for breach of the landlord’s obligations relating to the status and condition of the premises fall under this heading. Relevant Law
Section 45(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment as far as they apply to the premises.
The Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) under s 45(1)(bb) of the Act applied to the tenancy from 1 July. Minimum standards for residential housing are also contained in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 and they applied from the start of the tenancy.
The Regulations relevantly require every habitable room to have a window that allows adequate light to enter the room and that opens to the outside and is, in size, at least 5% of the floor area of the room.
Breaching the obligation in s 45(1)(c) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
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.
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises under s77(2)(ac) of the Act. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with s36 of the Act (legal impediments to occupation) or 45(1)(c) of the Act.
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful it may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Window
There was one fixed window in the office space. It faced the street. Plainly it did not comply with the Regulations because it could not be opened. It is likely that it was constructed that way because the building abuts the footpath, and windows cannot be permitted to open out onto a public footpath because it would be a danger to people using the footpath.
The tenants complained about the lack of ventilation and the landlord replaced it with a window that opened. But it opened from the bottom only approximately 15cms. No doubt that was because of the danger I have just mentioned.
The relevant regulation specifies the area of the window that must be openable, and it would be inconsistent with the regulation to claim compliance with it for a window that does open fully or substantially fully. To hold otherwise would allow compliance for a window that opened a miniscule amount and that would defeat the purpose of the regulation.
I find, therefore, that the replacement window did not comply with the regulation either. I will consider the consequences for this breach below. The Premises
I am satisfied from the Council file that the office space did not have resource consent to be occupied for residential purposes. It is zoned for commercial use, and I see that is confirmed in the particulars for the sale of two of the other units.
It follows that, at least on the face of it, the office space cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes.
Against that, the landlord put forward two arguments.
The first is that the tenants chose to use the office space and therefore the landlord should not be responsible if the space was not compliant.
The argument goes that the subletting tenant initially occupied the roof space before choosing to move into the office space. The tenants then occupied the office space as sub-tenants and then chose to remain there when they were formally granted a tenancy. The landlord says that the original tenancy was for the roof space.
The answer to this argument is that the tenants’ tenancy began on 13 June 2025. Aside from the point that I have found it to a standalone tenancy, at that time the tenants occupied the office space, they intended to occupy it, and they accepted the tenancy on that basis. The landlord did not tell them that their tenancy was for exclusive occupation of the roof space. It may not have been expressed, but the obvious implication was that the tenants were being granted exclusive occupation of the office space. It would be artificial to find otherwise.
I note as well that the roof space was intended for storage. It is not an enclosed space, and in my view, it is not suitable for use as a bedroom. I am not even sure that it qualifies as a habitable room under the Regulations.
It is also instructive that the owner changed the window in the office space to make it more conducive for use as a bedroom. Whether the owner had in mind the Regulations when making that decision, I don’t know. If the landlord’s position was that the space was for commercial use, and it was the tenants’ choice to use it as a bedroom, it would have been more consistent for them to tell the tenants to use the loft room assigned to them rather than changing the window.
I therefore reject that argument.
The other argument is that despite the office space having only commercial use consent, it was lawful for the tenants to use it as a bedroom in the circumstances.
The landlord produced some evidence in support of that. There is an email from someone described not as an expert in the field but with a legal brain.
There is reference to the Building Act and comments from a Council Building Consent Officer. I can disregard that because we are primarily concerned here with planning, not the Building Code.
The part that concerns planning is hearsay and brief and therefore unreliable. Some of it is, in fact, unhelpful to the landlord but I am disregarding it entirely.
There is an email from a Council Planning Officer referencing the premises. It states that the District Plan allows for visitor accommodation for bookings of less than 28 days. If it were to be rented out for more than 28 days, then it becomes a residential unit. It adds that a change of use to the building may require building approval.
The particulars for the sale of the two other units state that the office space can be used as a bedroom. I accept that they have been produced by reputable estate agents and one would expect them to be accurate. But we are dealing here with a rental property subject to the Act. I made the point myself during the hearing that if the building was owner occupied, the owner could use the office space as a bedroom. But a rental property is subject to different requirements. I note as well, that even an owner would not be able to use a room as a bedroom unless it was a habitable space.
The conclusion I have reached is that there is no reason for me to depart from my initial view that it was unlawful for the office space to be offered to the tenants for use as a bedroom.
Section 77A of the Act requires me to consider whether the unlawfulness was caused or contributed to by the landlord’s failure to comply with s36 or s45(1)(c) of the Act. The space did not comply with s45(1)(c) because the window was not compliant, but I do not think that made it unlawful to occupy. That simply made it in breach of the Act.
Section 36 requires the landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure that there are no impediments to occupation of the premises for residential purposes. There was no evidence as to the owners’ knowledge of the resource consent for the office space. They bought the premises in 2022, and I think it is reasonable to assume that they were advised of the resource consent. In any case, it must have been obvious that the ground floor of these units was intended for commercial use and if the owners did not make enquires to confirm the situation, that was a failure to take all reasonable steps under the s36.
It follows that these were unlawful residential premises under s77A of the Act. Remedy
The Tribunal may award the tenants the rent they have paid in full, but it has a discretion to award less or no rent at all.
The tenants have had the use of the premises including the shared spaces. There has been no complaint about those shared spaces. The tenants were unhappy with the conditions in the office space which they described as cold and damp but how much that was due to the space falling short of standards required for residential use is unclear.
The tenants reasonably raised the issue of fire safety. Going by the plans, it does appear that the space should have been constructed with the usual protections from fire spreading from the rest of the unit. One would expect so because the space was designed to be used separately from the rest of the unit.
All that said, the space should not have been offered to the tenants because it was unlawful, and some repayment of rent paid ($5592.86) should be ordered. Taking all things into consideration I discount full repayment by 2/3 and therefore award repayment of $1,864.29.
An award of exemplary damages is also required for the breach in relation to the window. Having an openable window complying with the regulations is a basic requirement for ventilation. Having no ventilation is intolerable. After the window was replaced, there was some ventilation, but it was not enough. It is generally recommended that premises are opened fully for 10-15 minutes every day to air them. That was not possible. That failure would have contributed to dampness and cold in the space.
The maximum award is $7,200 but that is reserved for the most serious cases. Taking all things into consideration, including the effect on the tenants, an award of $900 is appropriate. No additional award of compensation is required.
The tenants have been substantially successful and so I award them the filing fee. I also grant them name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312840 — Exemplary damages at Unit6, 173 Chester Street East, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5312840 — Exemplary damages at Unit6, 173 Chester Street East, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions