What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5202011?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5202011?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5202011?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5202011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12068013-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5202011?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5202011?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5202011?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5202011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12068013-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

112 Postman Road, Dairy Flat, RD 4, Dairy Flat 0794 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5202011 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Ms Zhou attended the hearing as the representative of Wiki Property Management Ltd. Ms Zhou was the property manager.

The tenant, Te Aka Matua Herenga Charitable Trust, did not attend. Ms Kahotea was the trustee at the time the tenancy agreement was signed. Introduction

This matter concerns an application by Ms Zhou, the property manager, seeking compensation under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) for alleged damages caused by the occupants of the tenancy. The respondent tenants are Te Aka Matua Herenga Charitable Trust (“the Trust”) and Ms Kahotea, which entered into a residential tenancy agreement commencing on 30 December 2024 for a fixed term of 5 years. The tenancy was terminated on 18 February 2025, following a mutual agreement reached via text messages between the parties.

At the outset of the tenancy, Ms Zhou was aware that the Trust intended to use the premises as a drug rehabilitation facility.

Ms Kahotea, a trustee of the Trust, is not personally present at this hearing, despite the Trust being the legal tenant under the tenancy agreement.

There are three dwellings on the property. Ms Zhou’s claims include: a. Cleaning the 3 dwellings - $840; b. Repairing broken bedroom door lock, broken lamp, glue back broken wood burner stand bricks - $635; c. Replace broken curtain tracks, repairing cupboard doors (kitchen, wardrobe x2) - $540; d. Stabbed sewer pipe repairing - $1,332.61; e. Second water leak check - $395.60; f. Replace broken glass - $402.50; g. Rekey and change locks - $370.51; h. Replacement of burnt-out light bulbs x28 - $440.07, and i. Auckland Council infringement fine - $1,000; and j. Rent arrears - $9,000.

The total compensation sought was $5,956.29.

As of 18 February 2024, the rent arrears owed were $9,000.

During the hearing, a jurisdictional issue has arisen regarding whether these claims fall within the scope of the Act, particularly under s 5(1)(a) and s 5(1)(s), which exclude certain premises from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. I must first determine whether I have jurisdiction before addressing the merits of the claims. The facts

On 8 November 2023, Auckland Council issued a Notice to Fix (“NTF”) under sections 164 and 165 of the Building Act 2004.

The NFT was issued to the owner of 112 Postman Road, Dairy Flat, which consists of a main house, a second house, and a sleepout. The property was originally consented for residential use but is being operated as a drug rehabilitation facility by Nga Kete Wananga Solutions Limited, housing over 10 people.

Auckland Council found an unauthorised change of use from residential premises to a drug rehabilitation facility, requiring stricter Building Code compliance. The property lacks the necessary consents, fire safety measures, and other building code requirements.

Auckland Council informed the owner that they must either revert the property to residential use or apply for building and resource consents to legalise the current use, including obtaining a fire engineer’s report. Compliance is required by 8 January 2024, or the council may issue a Dangerous Building Notice to evacuate residents. Failure to comply risks fines up to $200,000, plus $20,000 daily for ongoing breaches.

While the tenants volunteered to address the issues, the council emphasised that legal liability rests solely with the owner. A prior Notice to Fix was issued in May 2022, but progress remains incomplete.

For completeness, the screenshots below display the contents of the notice of fix relevant to this decision. Issue

Does the tenancy at 112 Postman Road, Dairy Flat—used as a drug rehabilitation facility operated by Nga Kete Wananga Solutions Limited—fall within the jurisdiction of the Act , or is it excluded under ss 5(1)(a) and/or (s)? Analysis Section 5(1)(a): commercial premises

Section 5(1)(a) excludes premises used as “commercial premises” from the Act.

The property operates as a drug rehabilitation facility with short-term stays, managed by Nga Kete Wananga Solutions Ltd (with the Trust and Ms Kahotea’s knowledge).

As Auckland Council’s finding of fact that the main house serves as sleeping accommodation, while the second building functions as an admin office and meeting room. The smaller sleepout was being used for manager/security accommodation.

This structured, service-based operation suggests a business or institutional use rather than a standard residential tenancy under the Act.

Here, the occupants are clients of a rehabilitation service, not traditional tenants under a residential agreement.

The presence of emergency exit signs, fire extinguishers, and administrative offices further indicates a structured facility, aligning more with commercial or community housing models outside the Act.

This view is reinforced by the Auckland Council’s finding that the property had undergone an unauthorised change of use from residential (Detached Dwelling) to Community Care (Building Use SC), triggering stricter compliance requirements under the Building Act 2004, for instance, fire safety measures.

Accordingly, given the commercial-oriented use of the property, section 5(1)(a) of the Act applies. This means I do not have the jurisdiction to consider Ms Zhou’s claims for compensation.

If I am wrong in determining that the property was used as a commercial drug rehabilitation facility, I will now consider whether section 5(1)(s) of the Act applies to the facts. If so, I do not have the jurisdiction to consider Ms Zhou’s claims for compensation. Section 5(1)(s): subletting for specified purposes

Section 5(1)(s) of the Act states: where the tenancy agreement— (i) is genuinely entered into to enable a tenant (the sublandlord) to sublet the premises to provide accommodation for— (A) other people for commercial gain; or (B) the sublandlord’s employees; or (C) persons on low incomes; or (D) persons with special housing needs; or (E) persons whose disabilities mean that they need support or supervision in their housing; and (ii) is not entered into to provide accommodation for the sublandlord or to evade this Act or any of its provisions; and (iii) expressly provides that the sublandlord will not personally occupy the premises: Then the Act does not apply.

In Wiki Property Management Ltd v Te Aka Matua Herenga Charitable Trust [2024] NZTT 4964583 (involving the same parties), Adjudicator MacPherson held that s 5(1)(s) applied because: a. Ms Kahotea provided transitional housing and a 3-month holistic recovery programme for women with special needs, including those recovering from addiction, mental health challenges, or on bail. b. The Trust collaborates with government agencies, such as Corrections and the Ministry of Social Development, which fund the accommodation, ensuring that residents receive tailored support to transition into long-term housing. c. The Trust could not personally occupy the premises.

In Wiki Property Management Ltd, Adjudicator Mr MacPherson, did not have difficulty in finding section 5(1)(s) applies because, at paragraph 9, he said: “The respondent is a registered charitable trust and therefore not capable of personally occupying the premises. Matilda confirmed that she does not live at the premises.”

Although Ms Kahotea did not attend the hearing today, the evidence before me indicates that Auckland Council inspected the property on 25 October 2023 and identified “The smaller sleepout was being used for manager/secretary accommodation.” An inference can be drawn from this unchallenged fact that Ms Kahotea did not reside at the premises.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that the tenancy agreement was entered into to enable Te Aka Matua Herenga Charitable Trust to sublet the premises to provide accommodation: a. For people for commercial gain; b. For persons on low incomes; or c. For persons with special housing needs.

I am also satisfied that the tenancy agreement was not entered into to provide accommodation for the sublandlord or to evade the Act.

Because section 5(1)(s) applies, I do not have jurisdiction to consider Ms Zhou’s claims for compensation. Conclusion

Because sections 5(1)(a) and (s) apply, the tenancy agreement entered into between the parties is excluded from the Act. I must dismiss the application.

Ms Zhou may need to pursue her claims in another jurisdiction. Ms Zhou is urged to seek independent legal advice to assist her in progressing the matter.

Reasons