What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5363221?

The tribunal order states: The Landlord shall pay the Tenant $1657.00 immediately by consent.

How much money was awarded in case 5363221?

Compensation: Bond By Consent: $1,580.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Property file by conse…: $77.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5363221?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5363221?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12958107-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5363221?

The tribunal order states: The Landlord shall pay the Tenant $1657.00 immediately by consent.

How much money was awarded in case 5363221?

Compensation: Bond By Consent: $1,580.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Property file by conse…: $77.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5363221?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5363221?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12958107-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6C Wellesley Road, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5363221 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5363221 — net $1,657.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Property file by consent	$77.00	Property file by consent
Compensation: Bond by consent	$1,580.00	Bond by consent
Net award	$1,657.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,657.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5363221 — net $1,657.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Property file by consent	$77.00	Property file by consent
Compensation: Bond by consent	$1,580.00	Bond by consent
Net award	$1,657.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,657.00

Order

The Landlord shall pay the Tenant $1657.00 immediately by consent.
The Application by the Tenants is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
At the hearing, the Landlord agreed to pay the Tenants compensation of $77.00 for the cost to obtain the property file and $1580.00 as a refund of the bond paid.
By way of background, the tenancy commenced on 15 October 2010 and remained current at the time of the hearing. The tenancy was initially verbal. At the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord was Mr Matthews. In May 2023, Mr Matthews appointed Haven Management to manage the property. Mr Mr Matthews passed away in December 2024, after which management of the property was assumed by a further company directed by Mr Matthews’ son, Mr King. Mr King attended the hearing as the Landlord.
The onus rests on the Applicant Tenants to prove their case on the balance of probabilities. This requires the Tenants to provide evidence in support of their claims and to persuade the Tribunal that their assertions are more likely than not to be correct. Unlawful residential premises
The Tenants sought compensation in the sum of $100,000.00 by way of rent reimbursement, on the basis that the premises were unlawful. They submitted that, upon reviewing the Council property file, they discovered that unconsented work had been carried out at the property and that a Notice to Fix was issued on 10 October 2025, requiring the issues to be remedied by 10 February 2026.
The Tenants stated that during the tenancy they raised repair issues with the Landlord, who was slow to respond. Eventually the Tenants stated they became accustomed to living with the repair issues. Their primary concern was the illegality of the premises. They referred to issues with wardrobes affecting storage and issues with lighting, however there was no evidence given as to how these defects were related to the unconsented work. They stated they remained in the premises because it was quiet and they felt powerless to raise complaints for fear of eviction. No evidence was provided to substantiate the alleged defects during the tenancy and how they may have been caused by the unconsented works.
The Tenants relied on a Council Notice to Fix stating that unauthorised building works had been carried out, including alterations to existing sanitary plumbing, internal walls, and doorways, without building consent, contrary to section 40 of the Building Act 2004. The ground floor of the rear two-storey dwelling had been converted into two residential units, being premises 6B and 6C. Additional sanitary fixtures with associated plumbing and drainage were installed, and the use of the building was changed from a single household unit to sleeping residential accommodation without authority. The Landlord was required to remove the unauthorised works and reinstate the authorised use or otherwise achieve compliance with the Building Act 2004.
The Landlord stated that he was unaware the premises were unlawful, having taken over management of the property in 2024. He advised that he was informed he could remove the Tenants and make the property compliant, which he attempted to do by placing the property on the market to address his father’s debts. He stated that he was unaware of the absence of code compliance.
Unlawful residential premises are defined in section 78A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as residential premises that are used for occupation as a place of residence but— (a) cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes; and (b) where the landlord’s failure to comply with obligations under sections 36, 45(1)(c), 66H(2)(c), or 66I(1)(c) has caused or contributed to that unlawful occupation.
The policy intent of this provision is to discourage landlords from renting out unconsented or unlawful premises and to hold them accountable.
In determining whether premises are unlawful, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the premises cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes. The unlawfulness must be more than a mere regulatory breach. Examples include premises with no building or resource consent, where abatement or dangerous or insanitary building notices have been issued, or where garages, basements, or parts of a dwelling have been converted and rented as separate household units without Council approval. In such cases, Tribunal authorities have awarded partial rent refunds, including awards of approximately 50%.
Having considered the evidence from the Council, I find that the conversion of the rear dwelling into a separate household unit without consent justifies a finding that the premises are unlawful residential premises. The Landlord converted the rear house into two units without obtaining the required consent.
Section 78A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, without limiting section 77, the Tribunal may order the landlord to refund all or part of the rent paid for the period during which the premises were unlawful, subject to any deduction the Tribunal considers fair having regard to the special circumstances of the case.
In determining the appropriate rent refund, the Tribunal must carefully balance the amount to be deducted, taking into account the nature of the premises and any special circumstances. Tribunal authorities have identified the following relevant factor 1 s: (a) the landlord’s motivation for renting the premises and conduct during the tenancy; (b) the tenant’s motivation for renting the premises and bringing the claim, and the length of occupation; 1 1 AD v GAO[2021[ NZTT North shore 4269212 at [71] None v None NZTT 4295031 (c) the benefits obtained by the landlord; (d) the benefits obtained by the tenant; (e) the seriousness of the breaches rendering the premises unlawful; (f) any other breaches by the landlord; (g) any detriment or loss suffered by the tenant; (h) the purpose of section 78A in preventing landlords from unfairly profiting; (i) the public interest in discouraging unlawful tenancies; and (j) any other compensation or exemplary damages awarded.
The Tenants resided at the premises for approximately 15 years and brought the claim only after discovering that the premises were unconsented. There was no evidence that the Tenants consistently notified the Landlord of ongoing issues or sought Tribunal intervention during the tenancy. The Tenants had the benefit of long-term occupation of a quiet and comfortable property. While there is a public interest in ensuring landlords undertake due diligence to ensure compliance, there was no evidence of loss or detriment suffered by the Tenants. The Landlord benefited from receiving rental income from a separately created unit, and no further evidence was provided as to additional benefits.
Having considered all of the evidence, I find that a refund of 5% of the total rent paid would have been appropriate. While some cases have awarded refunds of up to 50%, I am satisfied that the Tenants’ partial motivation in bringing the claim was primarily to seek an opportunity to recover rent. The Tenants described only minor issues such as lighting and storage, and no documentary evidence was provided to show that maintenance issues linked to the unconsented works were raised with the Landlord. The Tenants described the property as comfortable and in a quiet location. The fact that the Tenants remained in occupation for 15 years and did not indicate an intention to vacate upon learning of the unlawfulness supports a finding that the premises were satisfactory for their purposes.
The Tenants produced limited bank statements and submitted that they paid approximately $219,000.00 in rent in total. However, they sought reimbursement of $100,000.00 due to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, The evidence provided was insufficient to establish the total rent paid. In the absence of a rent summary or complete bank payment records, the Tribunal is unable to reconcile the amounts claimed. Given the substantial sum sought, the Tenants were required to provide clear evidence. As the rent paid has not been proven, no order can be made.
The claim for rent reimbursement is dismissed. Failure to lodge the bond
The Tenants alleged that the Landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required timeframe.
Section 19(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires a landlord to lodge any bond payment with the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receipt.
A failure to comply with this obligation constitutes an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 pursuant to section 19(2) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
I find that the bond was not lodged and that an unlawful act has therefore occurred.
Where an unlawful act is committed intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that such an award is just, having regard to the landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenant, and the public interest, pursuant to section 109(3) of the Act.
The Landlord submitted that the failure to lodge the bond was an oversight and that he only became aware of the issue in May 2025. He assumed management of the property in 2024. Prior to that time, the tenancy was managed by a professional property management company, which received the bond. The Landlord stated that he did not receive bond documentation when their management ended and that he experienced issues with their handling of the tenancy.
I accept that there was no intention by Mr King to fail to lodge the bond. I accept that the bond was paid to the previous property managers and that Mr King only became aware of the failure in May 2025. While the absence of a lodged bond may have caused uncertainty for the Tenants, the statutory threshold for exemplary damages has not been met in terms of intention to commit the unlawful breach.
The claim is dismissed. Failure to notify sale of the premises
The Tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 47 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 47 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires a landlord to give written notice to the tenants immediately if the premises are placed on the market. A landlord must also advise any prospective tenants that the premises are on the market.
A breach of these obligations, without reasonable excuse, constitutes an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages of up to $1,800.00 pursuant to section 47(3) and Schedule 1A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Landlord failed to notify the Tenants that the property had been placed on the market. I therefore find that an unlawful act has occurred.
Where an unlawful act is committed intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that such an award is just, having regard to the Landlord’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. This is provided for under section 109(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenants discovered that the property was on the market when prospective purchasers attended the premises for a viewing on 31 May 2025. The property had been listed for sale on 18 May 2025. The Tenants stated that the unexpected attendance of prospective buyers caused them to feel angry, intruded upon, disrespected, and to experience a loss of security and quiet enjoyment. They submitted that they should have been advised as a matter of basic courtesy.
The Landlord submitted that the failure to notify the Tenants was an oversight by his solicitor. He stated that notice had been provided to the front tenants but was inadvertently not sent to the Tenants. The Landlord stated that he apologised at the time and that the omission was not intended as a sign of disrespect. He accepted that there was no excuse for the failure.
The Tenants disputed this explanation and stated that the Landlord had advised them in writing that he was not obliged to notify them. The Landlord denied making this statement.
Having considered the evidence, I find that the Landlord did not intentionally commit the unlawful act. Notice was provided to the other tenants, and the failure to notify these Tenants appears to have been an administrative oversight rather than a deliberate omission.
The claim is dismissed. Contents insurance
The Tenants sought compensation in the sum of $12,500.00 in respect of contents insurance premiums they had paid for the premises. They submitted that, had they made an insurance claim, it would have been declined, and that this justified reimbursement of the premiums paid. The Tenants confirmed that no insurance claim was ever made. A spreadsheet was provided outlining the amounts allegedly paid; however, no independent evidence from the insurer was produced to verify the total premiums paid.
To succeed in a claim for compensation, the applicant must establish that the other party breached a term of the tenancy agreement or a requirement under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, that the applicant suffered actual loss as a result of the breach, and that there is a causal connection between the breach and the loss claimed.
Having considered the evidence, I find that exemplary damages are not available in respect of reimbursement of house insurance premiums. Further, no actual loss was suffered by the Tenants, as no insurance claim was made and no financial detriment was established.
The claim is dismissed.
As the Tenants have not been successful in their claim, the Tenant shall pay their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5363221 — Tenancy dispute at 6C Wellesley Road, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5363221 — Tenancy dispute at 6C Wellesley Road, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions