What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5309422?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5309422?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309422?

The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309422?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13596559-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5309422?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5309422?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309422?

The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309422?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13596559-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11A Rathlin Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5309422 — Mould

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 12 May 2026.
On 26 November 2025 the Tribunal made an order for compensation and declared that the premises are unlawful residential premises.
On 29 November 2025, Gurcharan Lath applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a substantial miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, the Tribunal failed to enquire into the Trust structure, the finding that the premises were unlawful residential premises was incorrect and the Tribunal ignored evidence of the tenant’s failure to ventilate and report the mould issue.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Gurcharan Lath has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. Jurisdiction
The landlord submits that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in respect of this tenancy because the property is owned by SL Family Trust where the trustee is Sunil Lath, the son of Mr Lath. Mr Lath is not a beneficiary of the trust. There is a tenancy agreement between the Trust and Mr Lath signed in 2019 where Mr Lath pays weekly rent of $500.00.
The landlord submits that section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies which excludes situations where the premises continue to be used principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner, or a member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.
While section 5(1)(n) may apply to the upstairs area of this home, where members of the owner’s family reside (Sunil Lath’s parents) the validity of the tenancy agreement between Mr Lath and the Trust is not the concern of the Tribunal. I note that as they have chosen to enter into the agreement despite the familial ties section 5(1)(n) may not apply.
The Tribunal is concerned with the downstairs area occupied by the tenant which is a separate tenancy from the upstairs area occupied by the landlord. That is why section 5(1)(n) does not apply in this situation.
Even though the parties signed a document titled “Flat/House sharing agreement” the Tribunal looks at the substance of the arrangement, not just the label. The actual living arrangements and use of the premises are what matter.
The Tribunal has determined that the parties were not in a flat sharing arrangement. The relevant “premises” can be part of a larger dwelling such as in this situation where there is a self-contained flat which is separate from the landlord’s living area.
At the hearing the tenant produced the advertisement for the tenancy. The landlord has replied to the tenant’s enquiry with the following message: “...We have on offer an almost new, fully furnished two-bedroom flat suitable for two people to move in together. Flat with big rooms with heat pumps and built in wardrobes. Flat has lounge with TV (Netflix), leather recliner sofa and kitchenette.”
The message further states, “We can provide temporary accommodation upstairs till the flat is vacated at the earliest 20 March.”
This evidence confirms that the downstairs of this building was intended as a separate self-contained tenancy and any use of the upstairs was intended to be temporary and only until the downstairs area was available.
The Tribunal position that the downstairs is a separate self-contained tenancy is confirmed. Unlawful residential premises
The landlord submits that the Tribunal declaration that the premises were unlawful residential premises is incorrect. The landlord submits that the finding is due to a misunderstanding of the Building Act.
The Tribunal decision is based on the downstairs area being a separate household unit and as such the landlord was required to obtain written notice from the Council that the building, in its new use, will comply with the Building Code.
The Tribunal confirms its position that the premises are unlawful residential premises. Mould
The landlord submits that mould in the premises was due to the tenant not opening windows and keeping blinds shut. Also, that the tenant may have failed to use the existing extraction fan while showering or cooking.
The mould issue was in relation to the Healthy Homes standards claim and the lack of a rangehood in the kitchenette. The landlord has not produced any evidence that a rangehood was there or that there is an exemption in accordance with the regulations.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 12 May 2026.
On 26 November 2025 the Tribunal made an order for compensation and declared that the premises are unlawful residential premises.
On 29 November 2025, Gurcharan Lath applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a substantial miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, the Tribunal failed to enquire into the Trust structure, the finding that the premises were unlawful residential premises was incorrect and the Tribunal ignored evidence of the tenant’s failure to ventilate and report the mould issue.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Gurcharan Lath has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. Jurisdiction
The landlord submits that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in respect of this tenancy because the property is owned by SL Family Trust where the trustee is Sunil Lath, the son of Mr Lath. Mr Lath is not a beneficiary of the trust. There is a tenancy agreement between the Trust and Mr Lath signed in 2019 where Mr Lath pays weekly rent of $500.00.
The landlord submits that section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies which excludes situations where the premises continue to be used principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner, or a member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.
While section 5(1)(n) may apply to the upstairs area of this home, where members of the owner’s family reside (Sunil Lath’s parents) the validity of the tenancy agreement between Mr Lath and the Trust is not the concern of the Tribunal. I note that as they have chosen to enter into the agreement despite the familial ties section 5(1)(n) may not apply.
The Tribunal is concerned with the downstairs area occupied by the tenant which is a separate tenancy from the upstairs area occupied by the landlord. That is why section 5(1)(n) does not apply in this situation.
Even though the parties signed a document titled “Flat/House sharing agreement” the Tribunal looks at the substance of the arrangement, not just the label. The actual living arrangements and use of the premises are what matter.
The Tribunal has determined that the parties were not in a flat sharing arrangement. The relevant “premises” can be part of a larger dwelling such as in this situation where there is a self-contained flat which is separate from the landlord’s living area.
At the hearing the tenant produced the advertisement for the tenancy. The landlord has replied to the tenant’s enquiry with the following message: “...We have on offer an almost new, fully furnished two-bedroom flat suitable for two people to move in together. Flat with big rooms with heat pumps and built in wardrobes. Flat has lounge with TV (Netflix), leather recliner sofa and kitchenette.”
The message further states, “We can provide temporary accommodation upstairs till the flat is vacated at the earliest 20 March.”
This evidence confirms that the downstairs of this building was intended as a separate self-contained tenancy and any use of the upstairs was intended to be temporary and only until the downstairs area was available.
The Tribunal position that the downstairs is a separate self-contained tenancy is confirmed. Unlawful residential premises
The landlord submits that the Tribunal declaration that the premises were unlawful residential premises is incorrect. The landlord submits that the finding is due to a misunderstanding of the Building Act.
The Tribunal decision is based on the downstairs area being a separate household unit and as such the landlord was required to obtain written notice from the Council that the building, in its new use, will comply with the Building Code.
The Tribunal confirms its position that the premises are unlawful residential premises. Mould
The landlord submits that mould in the premises was due to the tenant not opening windows and keeping blinds shut. Also, that the tenant may have failed to use the existing extraction fan while showering or cooking.
The mould issue was in relation to the Healthy Homes standards claim and the lack of a rangehood in the kitchenette. The landlord has not produced any evidence that a rangehood was there or that there is an exemption in accordance with the regulations.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309422 — Mould at 11A Rathlin Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309422 — Mould at 11A Rathlin Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions