What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5323399 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5323399?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Reduction – Unlawful Premises/L…: $8,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5323399?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5323399?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13159786-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5323399 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5323399?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Reduction – Unlawful Premises/L…: $8,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5323399?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5323399?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13159786-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

245 McCallum Road, Takaka, RD 1, Takaka 7183 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5323399 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5323399 — net $8,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent reduction – unlawful premises/landlord failures	$8,000.00	Rent reduction – unlawful premises/landlord failures
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$8,028.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5323399 — net $8,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent reduction – unlawful premises/landlord failures	$8,000.00	Rent reduction – unlawful premises/landlord failures
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$8,028.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name.
It is declared that the premises were unlawful residential premises for the duration of the tenancy.
Liam Mcintyre must pay [The tenant/s] $8028.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

No other orders are made.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A pre-hearing case conference had taken place on 5 November 2025. James Duvall was accepted and acted as a representative for the landlord.
The tenants’ claims were confirmed at the case conference as seeking compensation of $24,000 and/or exemplary damages for the following claims: a)Failure of the landlord to meet its responsibilities (s 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 “RTA”), b)Quiet enjoyment (s 38 RTA), c)No written tenancy agreement (s 13 RTA), d)Outgoings (s 39), e)Rent – receipts and increase, (ss 24 and 29), and f)Unlawful residential premises (s 78A).
The case conference minute reinforced the evidential burden on an applicant. The applicant provided a detailed document bundle as well as series of audio and video recordings.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Background
The landlord’s property at 245 McCallum Road, Takaka comprises multiple dwellings. The premises in this tenancy was initially constructed as accommodation on-site for the landlord as his main house was built (after first living on a bus onsite). It comprises one bedroom and one other kitchen/utility room with a covered external connection. It was accepted by the landlord that the dwelling is neither resource nor building consented. I enquired as to any supporting code of compliance certification or such that may have been useful in better understanding any risks to the tenant from any omission. I was advised by the landlord that these could not be found at this stage, if they existed.
The tenant and the landlord entered a verbal arrangement for $190.00 per week. That increased over the tenancy to $210.00 (electricity inclusive), dropping to $200.00 before increasing to $220.00.
The tenancy ended by tenant notice.
The tenant summarised her claims as: a. Unlawful or Unconsented Building Use b. No Written Tenancy Agreement c. Rent Paid in Cash Without Receipts d. Leaking Roof Not Properly Repaired for 2 Years (one week rent compensation given ($220). e. No Smoke Alarm Installed and other health and safety concerns f. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment and Harassment – other tenant and LL involvement in personal life g. Electricity/outgoings/rent increases

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

I deal with this claim first 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 cannot be used lawfully as a separate dwelling.
The landlord did not dispute this. The failure was further confirmed by the local authority in a letter dated 26 August 2025 (after the tenant had lodged a complaint in June 2025 and a subsequent site visit on 25 August 2025). The letter noted:
The letter warned that if the lack of compliance came back to the TDC’s attention it may see enforcement action undertaken.
The premises was an unlawful residential premises.
There were a number of claims that related directly to the failure of the landlord 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. 1 See Tenant v Kranenburg [2021] NZTT 4298196, 4294929 No Written Tenancy Agreement
Section 13 RTA requires a tenancy agreement must be in writing and signed. That never occurred here. Rent Paid in Cash Without Receipts
Section 29 RTA requires the landlord, when rent is paid in cash, to provide the tenant with a written receipt.
The tenant made many rent payments via cash. No receipt was given and there is clear linkage to the landlord wanting to ensure the arrangement remained informal. Leaking Roof
The tenant provided video evidence of a recurring leak in the kitchen area. The tenant claimed it was a two-year period of intermittent (weather dependant) impact although her timeline records a one-year period. The landlord submitted the leak was ”minor”, and an inconvenience to both parties. One week of rent ($220.00) was compensated by the landlord once resolved.
The video shows water ingress in an area with electrical appliances running. It is accepted the leak was problematic and that it took an extended period to repair fully. The lack of any code of compliance for the electrical installation makes it uncertain on how any electrical issue from water might have manifest. The lack of smoke alarms is addressed later. No Smoke Alarm Installed and other health and safety concerns
The landlord accepted there were no smoke alarms, submitting this has since been resolved but saying it did not appear as a problem between the parties during the tenancy. That stance neglects to consider the onus is on the landlord to ensure working smoke alarms are installed (see s 45(1)(ba) and 138A RTA). The absence of a smoke alarm as a problem, in the worst instance, comes from an adverse event that is not alerted appropriately.
Other than that failure, the tenant raised concerns about unsafe practices such as use of the use of petrol for weed control (one off) and “human waste exposure” from the composting “bucket” toilet that used sawdust. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment and Harassment
There was a claim regarding another tenant. Section 45(1)(e) provides that the landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace comfort or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
This related to a criminal act of exposure by another tenant. This was dealt with by police appropriately and the person convicted. The event was understandably distressing for the tenant, but I do not find the landlord has any culpability in that matter.
Section 38 of the RTA provides that the landlord must not cause or permit and interference in the tenant’s comfort, use or enjoyment of the property, or the tenant’s privacy.
There was a recorded history of the landlord blurring the boundaries, even accepting the close proximity of each. He was recorded as acknowledging that he should not just turn up, telling the tenant it was “a bit naughty”. I accept there were unannounced visits but also that the landlord appeared to moderate his approach when advised of the problem. That said, the single instance of throwing rocks on the premises roof to get the tenant’s attention after no response to texts was totally inappropriate. While the landlord submitted this was done out of concern for her health, the video recording appears to indicate the driver was his pending departure and a need to “show her something”.
The landlord was honest about his loneliness and how that may have driven some interactions. One text to the tenant in April 2024 was very complimentary about her but I also note the prompt tenant response thanking him and expressing her happiness “to be here”.
There is also evidence of his expectation of a more involved and communal approach of the tenant to neighbourhood life albeit there was never any written agreement to support such an expectation.
The tenant also raised unwelcome advice she says came from the landlord regarding possible manipulation of benefits for the tenant’s benefit. As he was recorded saying, “sometimes you have to tell a little fib”. Electricity/outgoings/rent increases
Section 39(3) RTA states the tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are “exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities.”
In this tenancy the arrangement regarding electricity was confused. The landlord did not establish a robust process for accounting or billing for electricity and later moved the tenancy rent to an electricity inclusive basis, with a commensurate increase of $10.00 per week.
This was not raised as a problem at the time by the tenant and the sum does not appear excessive although the adaptation of an inclusive rent should be mutually agreed as tenant absences or other actions that might reduce consumption are not reflected in such a fixed arrangement.
The rent was adjusted a number of times. Section 24 RTA specifies the frequency of rent increases. In this instance the increases are blurred by the inclusion of electricity, varying the rent arrangement. Landlord’s response to the claims
The landlord accepted no tenancy agreement was ever drafted.
He claimed rent in cash was required due to his “cognitive decline according to his ACC accepted damage”. I note that in other aspects of operating as a landlord, such as increasing rent and chasing it when due he seemed quite capable.
The roof leak and lack of smoke alarms were accepted but the significance of such failures, and the responsibilities that sit with the landlord, appear unappreciated.
He disputes the claim of harassment and considered events more of a “friendly approach by both parties to have a mutual arrangement of sharing food along with favours”. As previously noted, the recorded evidence does not support any claim of equal enthusiasm from the tenant. There is evidence of pressure from the landlord for the tenant to engage more openly with the other residents and activities.
His written submission concludes with a claim the tenant was “totally aware of the building use and compliance” status during the tenancy (disputed by the tenant).
He also submitted the tenant was happy to live there for two years. He questioned the motives of the application after the tenancy ended, citing the historic capture of audio and video as sign of a “long term plan of extortion”. If so, his ongoing breaches nurtured any such plan. The submission is not accepted. Discussion
The landlord has submitted the rent for the premises represented good value for money. I accept that the rent charged was reasonable on its face had the premises not been unlawful. The duration of the tenancy was explained by the tenant as a lack of other options for the cost.
The tenant lived at the premises for more than two years. She lived there for the usual reasons of wanting somewhere pleasant yet affordable to live that would accommodate her pets.
It is in the public interest that when a landlord offers premises for a residential tenancy that they take all steps to ensure that those premises are lawful. Adherence to the Building Codes is important as those codes set out minimum standards such things as fire prevention and smoke alarms, insulation, ventilation, structural strength and integrity, plumbing and drainage.
The behaviour of the landlord does not appear nefarious. A desire for informal arrangements, including cash payment, had benefits to him although the amount of rent does appear to reflect some discount, based on the tenant advice of alternatives considered.
I consider the breaches in this case is serious. The premises have safety and sanitary concerns. The approach of the landlord to other aspects of the tenancy reflect the approach to compliance.
It is simply not acceptable for unconsented premises to be rented out. In this case the illegality was not technical: the deficiencies appear to require significant work if the premises are to be used as a separate residential unit, as noted in the letter from the local authority.
I consider a reduction in rent is required to ensure that the landlord does not unfairly profit from the unlawful premises. The public interest also calls for a significant rent reduction to discourage tenancies of unlawful premises such as these. In the event of fire, the tenant’s safety was at greater risk due to the lack of a smoke alarms, and no evidence of electrical compliance. There is a significant public interest in deterring landlords from benefitting from unlawful residential premises where skirting around relevant enactments in place to ensure the safe and rightful enjoyment of the tenancy by the tenant.
The landlord overstepped landlord-tenant boundaries at times but in the evidence provided I accept his actions to not have been malicious, but rather a reflection of confusion or mismatched expectations of the relationship he was expecting from the tenancy and tenant. Some gestures from the landlord were well intentioned.
I struggle to find that any underlying medical condition can account for a number of the proven landlord failures. There is evidence of prompt attention by the landlord to missed rent payment, financial management and other matters. I am satisfied he had an adequate level of personal capacity that prohibits any mitigation due to claims of limited ability.
I have also pondered the tenant’s timely recording of issues during the tenancy without any immediate redress at the time of occurrence. This is not fatal but it gives, in my mind, weighting to some positives within the tenancy situation when compared to alternatives.
The exact percentage of rent returned depends on the degree of unlawfulness and the tenant’s benefit from occupation. The Tribunal will weigh the seriousness of the landlord’s failures against the value received by the tenant. More commonly, the Tribunal orders a partial refund, often ranging from 25% to 75% of the rent paid during the period the premises were unlawful. The exact percentage depends on the degree of unlawfulness and the tenant’s benefit from occupation.
I do not consider it just that an award of exemplary damages also be made. This is also consistent with the substantial merits and justice of the case – see section 85 RTA and any unlawful act of the landlord is factored into the significant rent rebate
That exact sum of rent paid has not been provided and given the informal changes in rent and inclusive/exclusive electricity periods the answer is not obvious. I consider the tenant has paid over $20,000 in rent and sought more than that returned in compensation. I consider that would be inequitable if ordered.
Having considered the specific factors in this matter, and as outlined in [20] above, I consider that the rent should be reduced by a rent rebate of $8,000, being in the range of 40% of rent paid. The filing fee
As the tenant has been successful in her claim, she is also entitled to the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant requested suppression in its application. As she has been wholly successful, name suppression is ordered. The address remains public given the unlawful premises being of possible public interest.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5323399 — Tenancy dispute at 245 McCallum Road, Takaka, RD 1, Takaka 7183

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5323399 — Tenancy dispute at 245 McCallum Road, Takaka, RD 1, Takaka 7183

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the premises 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

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

What is the appropriate remedy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions