What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5376781 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5376781?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5376781?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5376781?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13678364-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5376781 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5376781?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5376781?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5376781?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13678364-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 67, 33 Mount Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5376781 — Boarding House

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held remotely on 19 May 2026.

The tenant was represented by his mother, Karen Paki.

The Tribunal made an order for compensation on 12 December 2025.

The tenant applied for a rehearing on 12 December 2025 and a rehearing consideration hearing was held on 19 May 2026.

The tenant sought the rehearing because he did not receive the boarding house rules and because there was no scientific evidence that the UV lightbulb had caused any harm to the next tenant.

The order dated 12 December 2025 refers to the boarding house rules produced by the landlord at the hearing. The tenant says that he did not receive a copy of the rules.

The landlord is required to provide the tenant with a copy of the boarding house rules 1 . In this situation failure to provide the rules to the tenant means that the rule to require tenants to replace light bulbs may not be enforceable against this tenant.

The tenant replaced the lightbulb even If he says that he was not aware of the rule requiring him to do so. Not knowing the rule did not affect the tenant in replacing the lightbulb but the only part of the rule he would not have been aware of was that the bulbs were to be replaced with energy-saving light bulbs.

The landlord not providing the tenant with the rules does not affect the fact that the tenant changed the light bulb with a UV light bulb.

The other issue raised by the tenant was that there was no scientific evidence that the next tenant was harmed by the UV lightbulb.

The compensation order made against the landlord in relation to the next tenancy related to harm caused by the UV lightbulb. The Tribunal accepted the evidence from that tenant and awarded $223.00. That order was in separate proceedings, but the compensation was due to the actions of this tenant.

It is not necessary for there to be scientific evidence of harm. What is relevant is that the Tribunal accepted the evidence submitted in that hearing and awarded the compensation. The Tribunal found that it was reasonable that this tenant be responsible for the actual cost incurred by the landlord because it was due to the tenant’s actions.

For the above reasons the tenant has not succeeded with his application for a rehearing.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held remotely on 19 May 2026.

The tenant was represented by his mother, Karen Paki.

The Tribunal made an order for compensation on 12 December 2025.

The tenant applied for a rehearing on 12 December 2025 and a rehearing consideration hearing was held on 19 May 2026.

The tenant sought the rehearing because he did not receive the boarding house rules and because there was no scientific evidence that the UV lightbulb had caused any harm to the next tenant.

The order dated 12 December 2025 refers to the boarding house rules produced by the landlord at the hearing. The tenant says that he did not receive a copy of the rules.

The landlord not providing the tenant with the rules does not affect the fact that the tenant changed the light bulb with a UV light bulb.

The other issue raised by the tenant was that there was no scientific evidence that the next tenant was harmed by the UV lightbulb.

For the above reasons the tenant has not succeeded with his application for a rehearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5376781 — Boarding House at Unit/Flat Unit 67, 33 Mount Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5376781 — Boarding House at Unit/Flat Unit 67, 33 Mount Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions