By Susan Edmunds of rnz.co.nz and is republished with permission
A tenant who sublet a one-bedroom apartment to three other people has been told by the Tenancy Tribunal to pay his landlord $1000 in damages.
A tenant sublet his one-bedroom apartment on Auckland’s Quay Street to three people without letting his landlord know. Photo: Supplied / Google Maps
Jun Sugita rented the 55sqm flat in Quay Street, Auckland, from Thomas Morton from August 2022.
It had one bedroom with a loft area about 1.5m high that was previously used for storage.
His tenancy agreement stated that the maximum number of occupants was one adult, but said he could request in writing to add further occupants, which the landlord had the right not to permit.
When Morton conducted an inspection in April 2024, Sugita was away but Morton found three other people living there.
They said they were his flatmates – one lived in the bedroom and two in the loft above. They told Morton they were paying rent to Sugita.
The tenancy was ended on 1 June.
Sugita told the tribunal he had one and then two flatmates before he went to Christchurch in December 2023.
“Given this, I find Mr Sugita committed an unlawful act. The issue in this case is whether Mr Sugita did so intentionally – that is whether he exceeded the maximum number of occupants knowing he was not permitted to,” the tribunal adjudicator said.
Sugita acknowledged the tenancy agreement had a maximum occupancy of one adult but said the original ad for the apartment said he could have up to three people, the adjudicator said.
Sugita could not produce the ad but offered an email exchange with a letting agent in which he enquired about another set of keys for a potential flatmate and was told that would be possible.
Morton said he did not have a problem with two people in the apartment.
“I am not satisfied that Mr Sugita intentionally exceeded the maximum number of occupants,” the adjudicator said.
“Given the email exchange … I accept Mr Sugita believed he was permitted to have up to three people in the apartment. While Mr Sugita did commit an unlawful act, I find he did not do so intentionally, and I therefore decline to award exemplary damages for exceeding the maximum number of persons in the premises.”
However, the tribunal adjudicator was satisfied that Sugita sublet the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement, when he was away.
“A tenant is free to travel and leave their home for an extended period. However, where a tenant is expressly prohibited from subletting, the tenant cannot on-rent the premises to another tenant while they are absent.”
The adjudicator said that exemplary damages of $1000 were appropriate.
Sugita made a counter-claim that he was forced to sell furniture quickly or give it away because the tenancy was ended quickly.
He said he should be compensated for outgoings related to hot water, and the emotional distress of moving out. He wanted $5780.
The adjudicator said it was not proven that the landlord had breached the agreement in respect of the water supply. The flat was in a commercial building that had been converted to apartments in the 1980s, with one water meter.
Morton said each owner paid body corporate fees including the cost of supplying water to each apartment.
Sugita’s claims for compensation were dismissed.
