What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5525071 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5525071?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5525071?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5525071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14116279-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5525071 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5525071?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5525071?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5525071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14116279-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Nikau Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5525071 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The hearing for this matter took place on 26 August 2026 at Waitakere District Court. The tenant attended the hearing, and a representative of the landlord’s agent attended the hearing for the landlord.
Following the hearing, at the Tribunal’s request, the landlord provided the Tribunal and the other party with the photographs of the premises that formed part of the advertisement for the premises. The tenant was given an opportunity to comment on the photographs.
The tenant claims that the landlord misrepresented the premises and is seeking: an Order terminating the tenancy; and/or reducing the term of the fixed term tenancy under section 66(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA); other compensation; reimbursement of the filing fee; and suppression.
The landlord had made a counter claim against the tenant (application no: 5547838). However, this was withdrawn on 13 August 2026
Prior to the hearing but after lodging the application, the tenant attempted to add a further claim that the rent charged was not market rent. There is no evidence that the landlord was given notice of this additional claim, and the landlord did not agree to it being heard as part of these proceedings. A. Relevant legal considerations:
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”. The party bringing the claim 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 are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. B. Did the landlord misrepresent the premises?
The tenant says that the landlord mispresented the premises by: a. Presenting it to the tenant as a three-bedroom home; b. Failing to show in the photographs in the advertisement that one of the rooms described as a bedroom had a glass internal door and did not have a built-in wardrobe; and/or c. Concealing the glass internal door during the viewing; A summary of the law:
If the Tribunal finds that one parties has been induced by misrepresentation to enter into the agreement, section 78(g) of the RTA provides that the Tribunal may make various orders including setting aside the agreement or varying it.
Section 78(h) of the RTA provides that the Tribunal may make orders that the “... High Court or the District Court may make under any enactment or rule of law relating to contracts”.
That means that the Tribunal can apply the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. That Act provides that where a party has been induced to enter into a contract by misrepresentation available remedies include cancellation of the contract and termination. 1
Broadly, a misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made by one of the contracting parties to the other that induces the party to enter the contract. A misrepresentation can occur by conduct. 2 In limited circumstances, silence can amount to a misrepresentation. The tenant’s evidence:
The tenant says: a. The premises were advertised as a three-bedroom premises; b. The premises is, in fact, a two-bedroom premises with two living areas; c. One of the bedrooms (the “room in question”) is in fact a living area with a glass internal door and no wardrobe; d. The photographs provided on the advertisement misrepresented the premises because they died not show the glass internal door and/or that the room in question did not have a built in wardrobe; e. They visited the premises before entering into the tenancy agreement but did not notice that the bedroom had a glass internal door and no wardrobe until they moved into the premises; f. They believe the landlord had concealed the glass internal door during the viewing by standing in front of it; g. They had intended on renting occupying one of the bedrooms themselves and renting out the other two bedrooms to flatmates; h. That due to the bedroom being a living room with a glass internal door and no closet, they have been unable to secure a flatmate;
The tenant has provided documentary evidence, uncontested by the landlord which shows that the premises has previously been advertised as a two- bedroom, two-living room house. 1 See sections 35 and 37 of the Contracts and Commercial Law Act 2017. 2 Walters v Morgan (1861) 3 De GF & J 718; 45 ER 1056. The landlord’s evidence:
The landlord says: a. They did not conceal the glass door during the viewing or that the bedroom/living room did not have a built in wardrobe; b. The photographs with the advertisement were not misleading; c. They have offered to provide curtains for the glass door in the room in question, but the tenant has refused that offer. Did the landlord misrepresent the premises by advertising it as a three-bedroom home?
I was provided with a floor plan of the premises which shows that the premises, as currently set up, has a kitchen, a living room, a dining room, a laundry, a bathroom, a sunroom, a bedroom with a walk-in wardrobe, a further bedroom with a built-in wardrobe and the room in question as a bedroom.
Under section 45(1)(c) of the RTA a landlord must, among other things, comply with all building requirements. The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (the “Regulations”) are a building requirement. Therefore, a landlord must comply with them to meet its obligations under section 45(1)(c) of the RTA.
Regulation 5 of the Regulations set out the minimum standards of fitness for a house including that a house must have a kitchen, bathroom, and “.... a room used, intended to be used, or capable of being used as a bedroom”. Regulation 8 sets out the minimum requirements for a bedroom which, broadly, set out the minimum size for a bedroom and that it must not include cooking appliances.
It follows that if a room does not meet the requirements of regulation 8, it is not a bedroom and should not be described as such.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the room in question had been originally designed as a living room. However, to be a bedroom under the Regulations a room does not have to have been designed for that purpose, it must just be “capable of being used as a bedroom”. In other words, it must comply with the requirements of regulation 8. There is no requirement in regulation 8 for a bedroom to contain a certain type of internal door or to have a built-in wardrobe.
There is no evidence to suggest that the room in question does not meet the requirements of regulation 8.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord misrepresented the premises by presenting it as a “three-bedroom home” is dismissed. Did the landlord misrepresent the premises by failing to show in the photographs in the advertisement that the room in questions had a glass internal door and/or did not have a built in wardrobe?
A misrepresentation can arise from conduct, and I accept that photographs of a premises which create a false impression could amount to a misrepresentation.
I take judicial notice that it is extremely difficult for photographs to entirely capture a premises. Even detailed inspection reports which can include hundreds of photographs often do not capture every door or every angle of a room.
In these circumstances, I do not consider that the photographs of the premises were misleading. While the photographs do not specifically show the glass door or the lack of a wardrobe in the room in question, there is no evidence that the photographs have been altered in any way and I do not consider they were deliberately staged in such a manner.
The claim that the landlord misrepresented the premises by use of the photographs is dismissed. Did the landlord misrepresent the premises by standing in front of the glass door at the viewing?
This is the tenant’s claim, and the tenant has the burden of proof.
The landlord denies that they concealed the door at the viewing by standing in front of it.
I do not accept that the landlord concealed the glass door during the viewing.
This claim is also dismissed.

Did the landlord have a duty to speak?

The tenant has not specifically raised this point, however, for completeness I have considered if the landlord had a duty to advise the tenant of the glass door and the lack of a built-in wardrobe in the room in question.
Silence can amount to a misrepresentation in limited circumstances such as where there is a duty to speak. 3
I do not consider that the landlord was under a duty to state that the room in question had an internal glass door and/or no built in wardrobe. 3 See March Construction Ltd v Christchurch City Council (1995) 6 TCLR 394 (HC). C. Should the term of the tenancy be reduced under section 66(1) of the RTA?
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 05 June 2027.
The usual legal position with fixed term contracts, is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it will only be in limited circumstances, that a decision maker like the Tribunal would interfere with that term. In the case of residential tenancies, one of these circumstances is found in section 66 of the RTA 1986, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements in certain circumstances, including where the Tribunal: is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.
There is a high threshold that needs to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular, the applicant (in this case the tenant) must establish that: a. There has been a change in his or her circumstances; and b. That change was unforeseen; and c. That unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not ended; and d. The severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term was not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party would suffer if the term was reduced.
Section 66(2) of the RTA provides that if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, that the Tribunal can order the tenant pay compensation to the landlord. Where the Tribunal makes an order under subsection (1), the Tribunal may order that the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy.
The tenant says that the unforeseen change in their circumstances is that at the time of entering into the tenancy agreement, they believed they were renting a house which functioned as a three-bedroom home and it was only after they moved into the premises that they realised the room in question did not have a wardrobe or a proper internal door and had been designed to be used as a living room.
The tenant says that they had intended to find two flatmates to share the premises with them. The tenant says that they have been unable to do so because of the limitations of the room in question which, they say, means the premises does not function as a three-bedroom home
The tenant says if the Tribunal does not reduce the term of the tenancy, they will suffer a severe hardship as they will be unable to pay the rent as they cannot find the additional flatmates.
I accept that the tenant has been unable (at least to the date of the hearing) to find flatmates and that they may be unable to do so. I also accept that this may be because of the nature of the premises including the limitation of the room in question. However, I am not satisfied that this is an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstance.
When renting a premises with the intention of renting out rooms to flatmates, there is always a risk that it will be difficult to find a flatmate at the advertised rate or at all. I do not accept that this was an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances.
In addition, I do not accept that the tenant only becoming aware of the limitations of the room in question after they moved in amounted to an unforeseen change in their circumstances.
The tenant’s application for the Tribunal to reduce the term of the tenancy is dismissed. D. Other matters:
The tenant has also raised concerns that the landlord’s agent may have a close connection with the landlord. The tenant said that this should have been shared with them.
It is my understanding that property managers are not regulated in the same manner as Real Estate Agents.
I am not aware of any obligation under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for property managers to disclose a relationship such as a romantic or family relationship with the landlord to the tenant or prospective tenant.
For this reason, I have not made any findings in respect of the relationship between the landlord and the landlord’s agent. E. Application for suppression
The tenant had applied for suppression of their name. The Tribunal must order suppression where a party requests it and has been wholly or substantially successful in their claims. 4 The tenant has not been successful.
The application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5525071 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Nikau Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5525071 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Nikau Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord have a duty to speak?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord have a duty to speak?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.