What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318509 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 5318509?

Compensation: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318509?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13786273-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318509 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 5318509?

Compensation: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318509?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13786273-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[redacted] Tenancy Tribunal Case 5318509 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings in this matter, which took place on 27 November 2025 and 22 June 2026.

The tenant has three claims she is advancing, as follows: a. She claims compensation for a gas bottle which she believed was 90% full when she took on the tenancy but which ran out after only 5 weeks (the gas claim) b. She claims compensation for not having power for two nights when the power was cut off (the power claim) c. She claims the premises are unlawful because “there is no such thing as 19A” (the unlawful premises claim)

At the first hearing, I heard evidence on the gas and the power claim. I then adjourned for the tenant to obtain the full Council file and for the Tribunal to hear evidence on the unlawful premises claim. Request for representation

There was a preliminary issue regarding representation at the first hearing which I dealt with at the outset of the first hearing. 1

[redacted] wanted to appoint a representative to appear for her.

In certain circumstances, the tribunal allows a party to be represented. The grounds are set out in s 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, as follows: 93 Right of audience (1) At any hearing before the Tribunal, every party shall be entitled to attend and be heard, to call evidence, and to examine, cross-examine, and re-examine witnesses. (2) Except as provided in the succeeding provisions of this section, no party shall be entitled to be represented at the hearing by counsel or by a representative, except where— (a) the other party consents; or (b) the amount in dispute exceeds $6,000; or (c) the other party is, or the other party’s case is being conducted by, the chief executive acting under section 124 or 124A. (3) The Tribunal may allow any party to be represented by counsel if it considers that it would be appropriate to do so, having regard to— (a) the nature and complexity of the issue involved; or 1 This is recorded in my order of 27 November 2025 (b) any significant disparity between the parties affecting their ability to represent their respective cases. (4) Where any party to any proceedings before the Tribunal is represented by counsel, any other party to those proceedings may be represented by counsel. (5) The following parties may be represented by a representative who is approved by the Tribunal: (a) the Crown, if the representative is an officer or employee of the Crown: (b) a corporation or an unincorporated body of persons, if the representative is an officer or employee or a member of the corporation or body or holds a majority interest in it: (c) a person jointly liable or entitled with another or others, if the representative is one of the persons jointly liable or entitled or, in the case of a partnership, is an employee of those persons: (d) a minor, or other person under disability: (e) any other person, if the Tribunal is satisfied that for sufficient cause that person is unable to appear in person or is unable to present his or her case adequately. (6) Where a representative of a party is proposed for the Tribunal’s approval, the Tribunal shall satisfy itself that the person proposed has sufficient knowledge of the case and sufficient authority to bind the party.

The tenant wanted her friend [redacted] to be the party representing her. [redacted] has sent many emails to the landlord on her behalf. The landlord strongly objects to [redacted] being [redacted] representative.

I asked the tenant what were her grounds for seeking a representative. She supplied information about her case and was able to well articulate the problems she has had with the tenancy. She said she just wanted [redacted] to talk on her behalf. She did not advance any other reason.

I am not satisfied that any grounds have been made out for representation.

I add that I am satisfied she has advanced her case well and appears to be under no impediment. Approach in the Tribunal - Burden of proof

As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.

This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.

As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Background

The tenancy started on the 4 th of Aril 2025. The premises are known as [redacted] and are one of two premises on the one block of land. The tenant’s premises are a tiny home / cabin at the rear of the property. It is fenced off from the main property and there is a shared driveway. The tenant has had no issues with the property itself. Plans of the property show it to be an immaculate looking and well-built tiny home, having been completed in 2022.

There is a letterbox and a rubbish bin allocated to the tenant. The premises has power and gas.

The tenant agreed to pay for her power, gas and water usage as part of the tenancy.

There is a power submeter in the laundry of number 19. There is a water submeter on the premises of the tenant. The gas claim

The gas account is in the landlord’s name. The agreement was that the tenant was to ask the landlord when it needed to be replaced and the landlord would get it replaced.

The landlord told the tenant at the outset of the tenancy the gas bottle was 90% full when she moved in but it ran out after only 5 weeks.

The landlord said it is happy to compensate the tenant for the gas she felt was not there when she moved in and during the first hearing the parties agreed that compensation of $120 was an acceptable sum, as ordered above. The power claim

The tenant was aware when she moved in that there was another tenant in 19 and that a submeter had been installed.

Initially, she never got any power bills from the landlord. It transpired that this was because the tenant in number 19 would not give the sub meter reading to the landlord. The landlord could not then generate a power bill.

The other tenant abandoned the property. This was in around June 2025. This lead to the power being disconnected because the power had been in their name.

On 9 July the tenant came home from work and there was no power. She immediately tried to contact the landlord and left messages text and emails but got no reply until the following day.

The power was not reconnected until the 11 th of July. This was during a working week and the tenant had to stay elsewhere.

The landlord said she was sick on the 9 th of July but actioned a remedy immediately on the 10 th when she saw the messages. The landlord says she moved in a very timely way to get the issue sorted but that Fast Connect needed the tenant to have the power in her name in order for a connection to be made. The tenant said during the first hearing she was unable to get home from work on the 10 th to meet with Fast Connect.

In the end, the power was not connected until the following day. The tenant lost about $80 worth of food. The tenant said she had 5 or 6 heat and eat frozen meals, a packet of frozen berries, a loaf of bread. There was also some chicken. The tenant said she dumped it in the end.

The landlord says that in the event it is determined they did not act swiftly enough to get the power put back on that compensation of $80 is appropriate.

It was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the power was connected.

I accept the landlord did everything she could to get the issue sorted once she learned there was a problem but I also accept the tenant was put to some inconvenience and lost food. I consider there should be an award in favour of the tenant in the sum of $80, being her loss in connection with the landlord’s failure. The Unlawful Premises claim – Relevant Law

Section 78A of the RTA gives the Tenancy Tribunal power to make a range of orders if the evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the premises are, or were at any material time, “unlawful residential premises”.

“Unlawful residential premises” is defined as: “Residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but – (a) That cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes 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 s 66I(1)(c) has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation.

Section 36 of the RTA provides that the landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes. Section 45(1)(c) says that a landlord shall comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.

The first step for determining whether premises are unlawful for the purposes of s 78A of the RTA is there needs to be a finding that the property cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes. This first step involves making a finding that the whole property has some sort of regulatory failure which means it cannot be occupied as a residential dwelling. In other words, the unlawfulness has been more than, say, just an “outstanding permit for a bathroom”. 2

The tenant claims the property is unlawful because “it does not exist”.

She has a copy of the certificate of title showing only one property at [redacted] and no 19A. She had a copy of a certificate of Code Compliance for her premises but says it recorded that the premises are [redacted].

She says she cannot get items sent to her by courier because when you put [redacted] in the address line, only 19 comes up. She also said when she tried signing up for Skinny, she was told there was no such property as [redacted].

She read out some generic information from a Council website which said to the effect there had to be resources consent if the premises were to be rented out or lived in as a separate residential premises. She said the premises therefore needed resource consent. She submitted that this is a detached dwelling that is not being treated as part of the primary home and as such it required resource consent.

I asked her for the references to these submissions but she had none, other than referring me to the Council website.

The full Council file was made available to me. It includes plans for the dwelling, the certificate of code compliance and the building consent. There is nothing outstanding on the file.

The landlord submits that that the premises are fully lawful. She supplied the rating assessment information for the property which records the improvements as including other buildings. She produced the LIM which referenced consent for a one-bedroom self-contained cabin (the tenant’s premises).

The landlord submits that if the tenant is unhappy with the premises she should move out. The tenant says she has been trying to find alternative accommodation but pointed to no defect or problem with the premises itself.

I conclude that, taking into account all of the evidence that has been filed, the tenant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the premises was unlawful. The premises was able to be occupied and lived in. It has building consent and final sign off. The tenant cannot point to any problem with it or breach 2 See Mansfield v Silk and another [2020] NZ TT 4246581, at [16]. of the relevant consent or indeed any fault with the property, which otherwise appears to be a very nice premises.

In any event I note that there is no evidence of any loss suffered by the tenant. Even if I had agreed with her I would not be making any award for damages.

The tenant’s claim that the premises are unlawful is dismissed.

Because both parties have had a measure of success I made no order for return of the filing fee and suppress the names of both parties.

Reasons