What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5352843 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 5352843?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $6,100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5352843?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5352843?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13152346-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5352843 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 5352843?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $6,100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5352843?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5352843?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13152346-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

38 Reid Street, Blaketown, Greymouth 7805 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5352843 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5352843 — net $8,128.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,000.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$6,100.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,128.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$8,128.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5352843 — net $8,128.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,000.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$6,100.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,128.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$8,128.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Douglas Richard Eastman and Eastman Developments Limited must pay [he tenant] $8,128.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenants’ claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing by telephone. He was represented by counsel Mr Jamie Martin. Mr Eastman also attended. He was represented by his sister, Ms Eastman.
The tenant dealt with Mr Eastman personally and so it is appropriate that he is named as a landlord. He represented the owner of the premises, Eastman Developments Limited, and so I have named that company as a landlord as well. In this decision, when I refer the landlord, I am referring to Mr Eastman.
The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages for various alleged breaches by the landlords of their obligations relating mainly to the condition of the premises. There is also a claim that the premises were unlawful residential premises, and the tenant claims repayment of the rent he has paid.
The landlords have not filed a cross application, but they have raised claims and ask that the Tribunal consider them.
The Tribunal issued a directions order on 17 November 2025 and that briefly sets out the background and that should be read with this order.
The key feature is that the residential premises are the rear section of a commercial building. When the building was constructed in the 1940s, the rear section, which is on two floors, comprised the tearoom, some facilities and office space incidental to the building’s commercial use. The company bought the building in 2012, and the landlord used the front section for his building work He also made some improvements to the rear section.
The tenancy began in November 2024 and ended, following service by the Council of a dangerous building notice, on 10 July 2025.
There is no written evidence of the tenant complaining about the premises until his breach notice on 23 June 2025 when he referred to the refrigerator and the wood burner. Jurisdiction
The Tribunal conducted a case management conference for this application on 17 November 2025. The landlord did not attend, and it proceeded without him.
The Tribunal’s directions order noted that the landlord’s position was that he provided the premises to the tenant for commercial use and that it was a matter for him to decide how he used the premises.
That argument was refined during the substantive hearing and requires consideration of s2(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) to determine whether this was a residential tenancy under the Act.
Section 2(3) provides that where premises are used for both commercial and residential purposes, they shall be deemed to be residential premises unless it is proved that the premises were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes.
The landlord argued that because he intended the letting to be principally for commercial purposes, the premises should be treated as commercial premises. I note that there can be no doubt that when the landlord granted the tenancy, he knew that the tenants intended to occupy and live in the rear section of the building which had been altered for residential occupation.
I don’t accept that the landlord’s intention at the time is relevant. The law usually determines issues of intention objectively, not subjectively. That means considering all the relevant evidence to determine what the parties intended. Their subjective intentions are not relevant unless they are shared. That is not the case here. The tenant maintains that his main reason for taking the tenancy was to live in the premises with his daughter with the possibility of also conducting a business of audio repairs there.
There is case law on how this section should be applied and relevantly in this case, the key question is are the premises predominately commercial or residential?
The landlord said that before this tenancy he had not received any rent from the premises. He said that friends and family had stayed there and contributed to the outgoings, but he had not made any money from their occupation of them. He said that he had received payment for allowing items to be stored in the front section.
The landlord said that the tenant intended conducting his business in the front section of the building. Photographs showing the front section show a considerable quantity of building materials, tools and a car on a hoist there. There does not appear to be much room available for the tenant to use as a workshop.
The landlord said that the tenant had moved things around before he took the photographs he produced, to make it look more cluttered. There was no evidence to corroborate that, and the tenant denied it. It seems unlikely and don’t accept it.
But I accept the landlord’s point that by moving things around in the front section, the tenant could have made some space for a small work area.
In my view the answer to the question whether the premises were predominantly commercial or residential is clear from the evidence. They were predominantly residential. The rear section comprised a living area, bathroom, kitchen area and two bedrooms. There was also a laundry area at the rear of the front section. Even if I were to accept that the parties intended part of the front section to be available for the tenant’s work area, the residential area was significantly larger than the commercial area available for the tenant’s use. I was not given dimensions, but it is obvious from the photographs.
I also accept that the tenant’s main reason for wanting the premises was for residential use. The tenant and his daughter had been living in a caravan, and they wanted somewhere more permanent to live. In fact, when they agreed the tenancy, they also agreed to sell the caravan to the landlord. The tenant did not have business premises or an established business. He did not immediately need business premises and if his business did get started, I believe that it would be modest in size.
It follows from this finding that the landlord has not proved that the premises were let to the tenants principally for purposes other than residential purposes. All the elements of a residential tenancy are present in this case and therefore the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this application. Unlawful Residential Premises
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 sections 36 (taking reasonable steps to ensure the premises are lawful) or 45(1)(c) (premises complying with legislative requirements) of the Act.
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it must not make an order for rent arrears or compensation against the tenant unless, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to make the order. The Tribunal 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 Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order.
At first glance one might think that these premises were likely to be unlawful residential premises. The building appears to be for commercial use and the evidence suggests that it was built for that purpose. There is no evidence that the local authority permitted a change of use.
The landlord produced some written evidence from Dr Bomphrey, who is the Building Compliance Officer at Grey District Council. Dr Bomphrey kindly agreed at short notice to attend the hearing to give evidence. He said that there was evidence on the Council property file that the building was occupied for a short time for residential use before 1980. On that basis, he said that the Council would not consider taking any enforcement action to prevent residential occupation of it now.
It seems that by a quirk of fate, the rear section of the building has acquired consent to be used for residential purposes. The fact that the Council can see no legal basis for preventing residential occupation of the building is conclusive on that point. The words “cannot be lawfully used for residential purposes” mean, in my view, that there must be someone, usually the local authority but not always, who can compel anyone living in the premises to vacate them or at least impose some penalty on them if they remain. There is no evidence that the Council or anyone could do that at the time the tenancy was granted.
The tenant argued that the notice that the Council served requiring the tenants to vacate the premises because the means of escape was obstructed rendered the premises unlawful. Plainly the notice required the tenants to vacate the premises and so they could not lawfully be occupied for residential purposes until the means of escape was cleared and made safe.
The consequences of disregarding the notice are potentially very serious including substantial fines, costs and eviction. The notice came about due to a breach by the landlord of the Building Act and therefore the Act because the landlord permitted the premises to be occupied when there was inadequate means to escape in the case of fire. The landlord said that that it was the tenant’s responsibility to make the means of escape safe, but I reject that. It is discussed in more detail below.
These potential consequences did not arise until the Council served the notice. Until then, there was a breach of the Act, but the consequences were latent. Those consequences could be avoided, and the premises made lawful to occupy, by work being done to clear the obstruction. That could have been done at any time during the tenancy.
The notice made the premises unlawful within the meaning of the Act and so the Tribunal has jurisdiction to make the orders that can flow from that. But save for the landlord’s claims, which I would not allow, this breach is better dealt with as a breach of s45 of the Act which I deal with below. The Condition of the Premises Law
Under section 45 of the Act, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety
Breaching any of these obligations 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. Wood Burner
The tenant said that the wood burner in the premises did not adequately heat the premises or the water supply for the premises. He said that there were holes at the back of the fire box, and he stopped using it in June 2025. After that he relied on electric heaters and he and his daughter used the local pool showers for washing. There was no photograph of the fire box showing the holes.
The landlord denied that there was anything wrong with the wood burner. He produced a statement from the plumber, and the plumber also gave evidence by telephone. He said that he inspected the wood burner and apart from some minor adjustment of the door, he could find no fault with it.
The plumber is a long-standing friend of the landlord, and the tenant called his evidence into question for that reason. But his evidence and the absence of a photograph showing the defects leads me to find that the tenant has not proved this claim to the required standard. Refrigerator
The tenant said that the refrigerator provided with the premises was not working properly and he notified the landlord about it in February 2025. There was no written notification until a notice to remedy on 23 June 2025.
The landlord said that there was another refrigerator available for the tenant to collect and the landlords eventually delivered it to the premises at the end of June.
I accept the tenant’s evidence on this issue. The landlord’s explanation is not acceptable. If the refrigerator was faulty, the landlord should have delivered the replacement, not expected the tenant to collect it. The tenant said that he was not physically able to do so. Smoke Alarms
The tenant said that there were no smoke alarms in the premises during the tenancy. The landlord said that they were there at the start of the tenancy, but he was unclear about where they were situated.
The landlord is an experienced landlord, but I was struck by his obvious unfamiliarity with the requirements of the Act. He said more than once that all he wanted to do was to help people by providing them with accommodation. That is commendable but a landlord’s obligations extend beyond just providing accommodation.
The landlord did not provide any evidence that there were smoke alarms in the premises apart from a photograph taken after the tenancy ended of what appears to be a smoke alarm on the ceiling of the lounge. He did not, for example point to fittings for smoke alarms or even penetrations where there had been fittings. Given his apparent lack of knowledge of the Act’s requirements, it is likely that there no compliant smoke alarms in the premises.
The regulations require smoke alarms within three metres of each bedroom door. There was no evidence of compliance and so this breach has been proved. Bond
The tenant said that he paid a bond, but the landlord did not lodge it. There was no evidence that a bond was paid and what evidence there was regarding a bond suggested that it was not paid. I find that it was not paid. Formalities
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing.
There is other information that the landlord must provide with the tenancy agreement including healthy home compliance information.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00.
There was no compliant written tenancy agreement. There was a short note written to enable the tenant to obtain assistance from WINZ. Inevitably, there was no compliance with the other formal requirements such as a Healthy Homes compliance statement or information.
I do not see that this as an attempt to evade the Act. It is likely that this is just how the landlord operates. Cleaning
The tenant claimed that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The evidence supporting that was inadequate. In a text at the end of the tenancy, the tenant said that he had left the premises as clean if not cleaner than when he moved in. If the tenant’s claim was true, I would have expected him to say something more condemning about the ingoing condition of the premises than that. I find that this claim has not been proved. Power
The tenant claimed that the landlord turned off the power to the premises for two hours or so. The landlord said and produced supporting evidence that he attended with an electrician to test the electrics at the premises in response to a complaint from the tenant. I accept that and find that the power was turned off for that purpose after the landlord tried to alert the tenant to what was intended. This claim therefore is dismissed. Healthy Homes
The tenancy claims that the premises failed to meet Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) in various respects. I note that the premises should have complied with insulation standards from the beginning of the tenancy. Other standards applied 120 days after the tenancy began.
The tenant says that there were draughts at the back and front doors. There were no photographs showing them.
But photographs produced by the landlord showed openings from the premises to the front section of the building. There was no way of closing off those openings. They were not to the outside, but they were to a large open space which was not part of the premises and that would have allowed draughts.
The situation regarding insulation is unclear. No photographic evidence was provided showing that insulation requirements were not met. It is possible that they weren’t, but the evidence has not been submitted to prove it.
The claim that ventilation standards were not met is proved. There was no evidence that there were extractor fans in the bathroom or the kitchen area. I note as well that there does not appear to have been any cooker in the premises. Residential premises must be provided with adequate means to cook food. Means of Escape
The landlord said that it was agreed with the tenant that he would clear the material obstructing the means of escape from the premises at the side rear of the building. The tenant denied that and said that due to a back condition, he was not physically able to move the material.
I prefer the tenant’s evidence on this issue. Given the landlord’s disregard for his responsibilities generally, I think it is likely that he did not see the need to clear the area. The tenant had other means of entering and leaving the building.
In any case, it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the means of escape was unobstructed. The premises should not have been provided to the tenant in in an unsafe condition. Even if there was agreement for the tenant to clear the area, the landlord had a responsibility to ensure that it was cleared and if it wasn’t, to clear it himself. Remedy
The condition of the premises fell short of what the law required. The tenant is entitled to compensation for the discomfort and loss of amenity that resulted for the landlord’s failure to comply with minimum standards.
The main deficiencies, in my view, were the openings to the commercial space. These would have made the premises difficult to heat, particularly during the colder months. There were other deficiencies as I have found. An award of $2,000 is appropriate to compensate the tenant for the defective condition of the premises.
There should also be an award of exemplary damages. The landlord had previously allowed friends and family to occupy the premises at no charge, other than meeting expenses. He said that he never intended to rent the building. But he chose in 2024, after owning the premises for 12 years, to collect rent for its occupation. Yet he did not ensure that the premises complied with minimum standards. I note that the landlord has other residential rental properties.
My sense is that situation arose due a combination of wilful ignorance and a disregard by the landlord for tenancy law. The landlord says that he wants to help people, yet he is content to accept rent and ignore, in some important respects, the comfort and safety of the tenant.
This behaviour was not good for the tenant, and it is not good for tenants generally. Taking all things into account I find that an award of $2000 is appropriate.
I consider that a substantial award of exemplary damages is required for the breaches that seriously affected the tenant’s safety. These were the absence of compliant smoke alarms and the obstruction of the means of escape. These put the tenant and his daughter at serious risk of injury or death in the event of a fire. An award in the mid-range is appropriate and I award $3,500.
The tenant was denied important information about the condition of the premises that he should have been provided with a tenancy agreement. For these breaches I award $600.
The tenant has had substantial success and so I have awarded the filing fee, and I have also granted him name suppression.
I decline to deal with landlord’s claims because he has not made an application. If I had had dealt with them, I would not have made any award in exercise of the Tribunal’s powers where premises are unlawful residential premises.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5352843 — Exemplary damages at 38 Reid Street, Blaketown, Greymouth 7805

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5352843 — Exemplary damages at 38 Reid Street, Blaketown, Greymouth 7805

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions