Landlord allows person to sleep on property without tenant's consent

Tuesday, 22 November 2022

If you have a problem with a tenant or landlord, you can go to the Tenancy Tribunal for help.

A Queenstown landlord has been fined by the Tenancy Tribunal for allowing an acquaintance to sleep the night in the tenant’s property without asking permission.

Landlord Michael Wan was ordered to pay his tenant, Luke Brennan, $1380 compensation for unlawful entry, mould, a broken fridge and defective shower at the property. An order was also made against Brennan arising from a counterclaim filed by Wan, reflecting a troubled relationship between the pair.

The tribunal was told that shortly after Brennan moved into the house in May 2019, an unknown person spent the night in part of the premises which Brennan referred to as the garage, but Wan described as a “portacom”.

A window had been opened, and a power cord brought into the house and plugged in, Brennan told the tribunal.

* Auckland tenant awarded over $7000 after being harassed in cockroach-infested flat

* Tribunal orders $2145 in damages against landlord to protect tenants' right to complain

Intentionally allowing another person to reside at the premises without the tenant’s consent is a breach of the tenancy, the Tenancy Tribunal decision says. (File image)

Brennan’s sister and his flatmate noticed the stranger in and around the property, and Brennan contacted Wan to find out what was going on.

Wan said he had authorised the person to stay there and it was a “one off” arrangement for one night only.

On another occasion, Brennan claimed that Wan entered the property without notice or knocking while Brennan was not at home. Brennan told the tribunal his flatmate was getting changed at the time and had been surprised by Wan. Wan denied this incident happened.

On a third occasion caught on CCTV, Wan entered the property without the tenant’s consent to allow a maintenance contractor in.

An audio recording was made with the tenant shouting , “this is my house – you cannot be in here”.

Tribunal adjudicator Scott Young said Wan’s behaviour was unlawful.

“The landlord has intentionally allowed another person to reside at the premises for one night. This is clearly a breach of the tenancy and possibly reflects the landlord’s attitude to entering the premises as and when he sees fit,” Young said.

Brennan was so concerned with Wan entering his premises without permission that he changed the locks on the property.

The tribunal ordered Brennan to give Wan a key to the new locks but told Wan that any further instances of unlawful entry would be viewed “very dimly” by the tribunal, Young said.

Brennan raised 30 claims against Wan including for emotional damage, failure to maintain the property, and failure to replace or repair broken items such as the fridge.

In total Brennan asked the tribunal to award him $90,000 for the condition of the premises, unlawful entry by the landlord, and mental and emotional stress.

He was awarded $1380 compensation for lack of a fridge or working shower, the presence of mould, and the unlawful entry. Wan was also instructed to replace the fridge, and to have the sink examined by a qualified plumber.

In a counterclaim Wan said the tenant’s behaviour disturbed the neighbour, which was himself.

Wan claimed the tenant came onto his property several times.

He also claimed Brennan abused the landlord’s gardener and called him “knobhead”.

Brennan denied entering the premises or abusing the gardener, although he “went to some lengths to explain that the gardener was a close friend of the landlord”, Young said.

The tribunal found Brennan had deliberately acted “with the sole intention of harassing the landlord, in his capacity as a neighbour … The landlord has not surprisingly been disturbed by the actions,” Young said.

Wan was awarded $500 by the tribunal.

Editor’s note: Several amendments have been made to this article, including to the headline, to clarify details of the tribunal’s findings. They include that the person who slept on the property was an acquaintance of the landlord, not a friend; that the shower was defective, not broken; and that the landlord denied entering the house while tenants were getting changed. Attribution has been added to statements which may be disputed, and a disagreement noted over the description of the space the acquaintance slept in (either a garage or, as the landlord claimed, a “portacom”). Changes were made at 1pm on November 25, 2022.