APIA Blog

RSS Feed

Maximum occupancy - don’t sit on your rights

Wednesday, February 10, 2021

Knowledge or acquiescence of a tenant exceeding maximum occupancy could invalidate a subsequent claim for exemplary damage.

RE: Driskel v Zoetebier [2021] NZTT Hutt Valley 4271298, 4277832 

This is a claim and counterclaim hearing that covers a number of issues in connection to the tenancy. For the purpose of this discussion, we will be addressing the breach of maximum occupancy limit exclusively.

 

Facts
  • The tenancy agreement limits the occupancy to no more than 2.
  • The tenant had, from time to time, exceeded the maximum occupancy.
  • By all accounts, the landlords had been sufficiently present enough throughout the tenancy as to be aware of the actual number of occupants living at the property.
    • The tenant’s uncle - Though the landlords initially gave permission for the tenant’s uncle to move in temporarily, it had transpired subsequently (through inspections) that the uncle had indeed become a permanent resident at the property.
    • The tenant’s new partner - The landlords were aware of the tenant’s new partner moving into the property with her during the tenancy (and, in fact, engaged the partner’s trade services at the property from time to time).
  • Despite having knowledge that the tenant had breached the tenancy agreement, the landlords never issued any 14-day notices or sought to enforce their rights in this respect until after the tenancy had ended.

 

The law

Exceeding maximum occupancy is an unlawful act under the Residential Tenancies Act and can attract as much as $1,000 in exemplary damages.

 

The analysis 

The adjudicator’s own words can be understood plainly enough:

… although the tenancy agreement recorded that there were to be “two occupants” only, [the landlords], by their conduct, can be understood to have agreed to others occupying the property. If they wanted to make occupancy an issue they should have done so during the tenancy and not waited until the end of the tenancy. It is not reasonable to order exemplary damages in these circumstances.” (our bold)

 
The outcome

No exemplary damages were awarded in this instance.

 

Take-home for landlords

Don’t sit on your rights. It is unclear from the wording of the order whether a similar hard-line approach would be taken for other types of breaches by tenants. Given that it is relatively easy to enforce one’s tenancy rights by way of 14-day notices there is really no reason why any landlord would, in this stricter renting climate, acquiesce to any breaches suffered.

 

Overall helpfulness scale (Because let's be honest, Tribunal decisions can be a bit of a mess but still, landlords and tenants need all the help we can get!)
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
 

 

Recent Posts


Tags

scotney williams worksafe bankruptcy Question and answer Zodiak Management HSWA daikin mortgage bad tenant interest rates relationship gluckman report housing affordability insurance warren buffett privacy tenancy tribunal financial advisers act parry v inglis cgt interest only beginner investor HHGA sale and purchase initio winz ask an expert mindset first home buying lockdown yield boarding house inspection trust buying Property (Relationships) Act data security Landlording personal growth Guest blog minor dwelling management watercare government tax shower dome Investment tip LIM property value anz RBNZ rta buying rules interest limitation skill shortage rental wof Tribunal case study Sponsored post commerce commission heat pump opes partners warm up new zealand airbnb property maintenance asbestos sublease wins education Keith Hay Homes Standards New Zealand building early termination legal ring-fencing nzpif market rent landlord holiday house structure covid-19 housing bubble subdivision advice rent control letting banking property partners inflation auckland council trademe Jeff Bezos investment strategy auckland anti-social behaviour rent increase renovation meth Case study ocr return income principal and interest apia kiwibuild damage investor cash-flow equity property management re agent khh television productivity smoke alarm heater rent arrears wealth creation DTI retaliatory notice maintenance fixed-term tenancy reserve bank negotiation tenancy issues ventilation trespass will letting fee Investor story speculator brightline bond property apprentice legal cost shortland chartered accountants development p lab lvr debt to income business interest deductibility unitary plan How to Editor's Choice rent quiet enjoyment meth contamination Level 4 travel bubble market short term rental RTAA 2019 HHS Kris Pedersen Mortgages and Insurance housing package property cycle CCC house prices Must knows election 2017 twg report tenancy services Must know insulation Holler cat Market report robert kiyosaki Gluckman ird clnz finance extractor fan buyer's agent heating tenant rtaa2020 barfoot and thompson termination debt enforcement off the plan election2020 rta reform short-term rental CoreLogic rental market sale and purchas bond form TCIT capital gain Q&A water bill positive cash flow recycling equity

Archive

Introducing Our Partners
Principal Sponsor - Kris Pedersen Mortgages & Insurance logo Gold Sponsor - Barfoot & Thompson logo Gold Sponsor - CoreLogic logo Property Apprentice logo The Insulation Warehouse logo The Renovation Team logo The New Zealand Property Investors' Federation logo