What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5452931?

The tribunal order states: By way of declaration the premises are a boarding house and the tenancy is a

How much money was awarded in case 5452931?

F Declaration The Premises Are A Boa…: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452931?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Mould, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13558619-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5452931?

The tribunal order states: By way of declaration the premises are a boarding house and the tenancy is a

How much money was awarded in case 5452931?

F Declaration The Premises Are A Boa…: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452931?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Mould, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13558619-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

58A Forbury Road, Forbury, Dunedin 9012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5452931 — 14-day notice

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5452931. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
f declaration the premises are a boarding house and the tenancy is a boarding house tenancy. 2. The application for comp	$5,000.00		f declaration the premises are a boarding house and the tenancy is a boarding house tenancy. 2. The application for comp

Order

By way of declaration the premises are a boarding house and the tenancy is a boarding house tenancy.
The application for compensation of $5,000.00 and exemplary damages is dismissed.
Richard & Forrest (2008) Limited must pay Elson Cardoso Oliveira $178.57 Immediately, being five days refund of rent.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
An interpreter who had been arranged at the request of the tenant also attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time and the Tribunal was unable to contact the tenant on the telephone number in his application.
The tenant did not provide any information about contacting him if he was out of New Zealand.
Pursuant to sections 91 and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 I am satisfied that the tenant had notice of the hearing because this was sent to the postal and email addresses provided by him in his application.
I have determined the matter in the absence of the applicant.
On 24/2/2026 the tenant filed an application for refund of $250.00 being the balance of his bond, compensation of $5,000.00 and exemplary damages.
The tenancy began on 4/2/2026 at a weekly rent of $250.00 and ended when the tenant vacated on 11/2/2026.
The tenant provided evidence of a payment of $500.00 to the landlord.

Is the tenancy a boarding house tenancy?

The tenant suggested the premises were a boarding house.
The evidence from the text messages was that the tenant gave 24 hours notice to vacate the premises on 10/2/2026.
In response the landlord submitted that the premises were not a boarding house because there were only five tenants, with the sixth room being occupied by a member of his family.
The landlord declined to refund the balance of the bond because the tenant had not given 21 days notice.
Since the amendments to the legislation in 2010 which introduced part 2A as a separate category of tenancy, a boarding house tenancy, there have been many decisions about what constitutes a boarding house.
The issue was settled by the High Court in Karmarkar v Pandem & Ors [2018] NZHC 693. Although expressing some reservations His Honour Justice Van Bohemen suggested five questions which made “sense” of the circular definitions for a boarding house in the legislation. His Honour found that if the answer to all the questions was “yes” then the premises were a boarding house. The questions were: a. Does the house contain one or more bedrooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants? b. Is the house occupied or intended to be occupied by six or more tenants? c. Is the tenancy intended to, or does in fact, last for 28 days or more? d. Are the tenants granted exclusive rights to occupy particular bedrooms, whether that occupancy is for single or shared use? e. Does the right to occupy a particular bedroom derive from the tenancy agreement between the individual tenant and the landlord rather than from a collective decision of the tenants?
I consider the answer to all five questions is “yes” and find the premises do meet the definition of a boarding house.
My reasons for this are: a. The property is a two-story dwelling with six bedrooms each with an ensuite. b. The tenants share a kitchen, lounge and laundry. The tenants are not responsible for cleaning any of the shared facilities. c. The landlord expressed that there was a clear intention for the premises to be occupied by six tenants, albeit that one was a member of his family. d. In Man-oock Holdings (2017) Limited v Kalauta [2018] NZDC 7953 His Honour Judge Crosbie discussed the criteria in Karmarkar. At paragraph [22] (b) His Honour stated “The number of tenants – there were only two tenants living in the property at the time the respondent moved in and the appellant relies on this in support of its position. However, under s 66B a boarding house is defined as residential premises that is “occupied, or intended to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time.” Therefore, the fact-finder is not restricted to looking at the actual number of occupants, but rather the potential number of occupants at the property.” e. The tenancy was intended to last for more than 28 days. f. Although the tenancy agreement between the parties did not provide that the tenant occupy a specific room, the intention was clear from the text messages that this was the case. g. The exclusion under section 5(1)(n) for members of a landlord’s family do not apply to boarding houses.
As I have found the premises are a boarding house and the tenant vacated after giving 24 hours notice on 10/2/2026 his liability for rent ended on 12/2/2026.
According to my calculation the tenant was liable for 9 days rent from 4/2/2026 to 12/2/2026.
As he paid the equivalent of 14 days rent, the tenant is entitled to a refund of $178.57.

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

In his application the tenant suggested that the landlord failed to provide premises that were “reasonably clean, dry and fit for habitation due to significant mould and dampness in the bedroom from the beginning of the tenancy”.
In support of his claim the tenant provided undated photographs and text messages between the parties.
While agreeing that the room needed “renovated” the landlord submitted that the tenant had agreed to paint the room and that this was written into the tenancy agreement.
When the painting did not happen, the landlord cleaned the room but submitted that the tenant still complained.
Under section 66I, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and ensure the premises are in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching either of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 66I(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Although the landlord accepted that the room needed renovated, I am not persuaded by the evidence from the tenant that the room was not in a reasonable state of cleanliness or repair.
Put simply the undated photographs are not enough to prove the matters claimed on the balance of probability.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The claim for compensation of $5,000.00 and exemplary damages fails.
No filing fee is awarded because the tenant was largely unsuccessful with his application.
Suppression is not granted because the tenant did not wholly succeed with the proceedings.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5452931. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
f declaration the premises are a boarding house and the tenancy is a boarding house tenancy. 2. The application for comp	$5,000.00		f declaration the premises are a boarding house and the tenancy is a boarding house tenancy. 2. The application for comp

Order

By way of declaration the premises are a boarding house and the tenancy is a boarding house tenancy.
The application for compensation of $5,000.00 and exemplary damages is dismissed.
Richard & Forrest (2008) Limited must pay Elson Cardoso Oliveira $178.57 Immediately, being five days refund of rent.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
An interpreter who had been arranged at the request of the tenant also attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time and the Tribunal was unable to contact the tenant on the telephone number in his application.
The tenant did not provide any information about contacting him if he was out of New Zealand.
Pursuant to sections 91 and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 I am satisfied that the tenant had notice of the hearing because this was sent to the postal and email addresses provided by him in his application.
I have determined the matter in the absence of the applicant.
On 24/2/2026 the tenant filed an application for refund of $250.00 being the balance of his bond, compensation of $5,000.00 and exemplary damages.
The tenancy began on 4/2/2026 at a weekly rent of $250.00 and ended when the tenant vacated on 11/2/2026.
The tenant provided evidence of a payment of $500.00 to the landlord.

Is the tenancy a boarding house tenancy?

The tenant suggested the premises were a boarding house.
The evidence from the text messages was that the tenant gave 24 hours notice to vacate the premises on 10/2/2026.
In response the landlord submitted that the premises were not a boarding house because there were only five tenants, with the sixth room being occupied by a member of his family.
The landlord declined to refund the balance of the bond because the tenant had not given 21 days notice.
Since the amendments to the legislation in 2010 which introduced part 2A as a separate category of tenancy, a boarding house tenancy, there have been many decisions about what constitutes a boarding house.
The issue was settled by the High Court in Karmarkar v Pandem & Ors [2018] NZHC 693. Although expressing some reservations His Honour Justice Van Bohemen suggested five questions which made “sense” of the circular definitions for a boarding house in the legislation. His Honour found that if the answer to all the questions was “yes” then the premises were a boarding house. The questions were: a. Does the house contain one or more bedrooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants? b. Is the house occupied or intended to be occupied by six or more tenants? c. Is the tenancy intended to, or does in fact, last for 28 days or more? d. Are the tenants granted exclusive rights to occupy particular bedrooms, whether that occupancy is for single or shared use? e. Does the right to occupy a particular bedroom derive from the tenancy agreement between the individual tenant and the landlord rather than from a collective decision of the tenants?
I consider the answer to all five questions is “yes” and find the premises do meet the definition of a boarding house.
My reasons for this are: a. The property is a two-story dwelling with six bedrooms each with an ensuite. b. The tenants share a kitchen, lounge and laundry. The tenants are not responsible for cleaning any of the shared facilities. c. The landlord expressed that there was a clear intention for the premises to be occupied by six tenants, albeit that one was a member of his family. d. In Man-oock Holdings (2017) Limited v Kalauta [2018] NZDC 7953 His Honour Judge Crosbie discussed the criteria in Karmarkar. At paragraph [22] (b) His Honour stated “The number of tenants – there were only two tenants living in the property at the time the respondent moved in and the appellant relies on this in support of its position. However, under s 66B a boarding house is defined as residential premises that is “occupied, or intended to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time.” Therefore, the fact-finder is not restricted to looking at the actual number of occupants, but rather the potential number of occupants at the property.” e. The tenancy was intended to last for more than 28 days. f. Although the tenancy agreement between the parties did not provide that the tenant occupy a specific room, the intention was clear from the text messages that this was the case. g. The exclusion under section 5(1)(n) for members of a landlord’s family do not apply to boarding houses.
As I have found the premises are a boarding house and the tenant vacated after giving 24 hours notice on 10/2/2026 his liability for rent ended on 12/2/2026.
According to my calculation the tenant was liable for 9 days rent from 4/2/2026 to 12/2/2026.
As he paid the equivalent of 14 days rent, the tenant is entitled to a refund of $178.57.

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

In his application the tenant suggested that the landlord failed to provide premises that were “reasonably clean, dry and fit for habitation due to significant mould and dampness in the bedroom from the beginning of the tenancy”.
In support of his claim the tenant provided undated photographs and text messages between the parties.
While agreeing that the room needed “renovated” the landlord submitted that the tenant had agreed to paint the room and that this was written into the tenancy agreement.
When the painting did not happen, the landlord cleaned the room but submitted that the tenant still complained.
Under section 66I, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and ensure the premises are in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching either of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 66I(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Although the landlord accepted that the room needed renovated, I am not persuaded by the evidence from the tenant that the room was not in a reasonable state of cleanliness or repair.
Put simply the undated photographs are not enough to prove the matters claimed on the balance of probability.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The claim for compensation of $5,000.00 and exemplary damages fails.
No filing fee is awarded because the tenant was largely unsuccessful with his application.
Suppression is not granted because the tenant did not wholly succeed with the proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452931 — 14-day notice at 58A Forbury Road, Forbury, Dunedin 9012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452931 — 14-day notice at 58A Forbury Road, Forbury, Dunedin 9012

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenancy a boarding house tenancy?

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenancy a boarding house tenancy?

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions