Businesswoman loses rental after housing ten migrants in five bedroom home

A Christchurch businesswoman has lost her rental after housing ten migrants in a five bedroom property.

According to a recently released Tenancy Tribunal decision, tenant Rodesa R Fernando​ rented a five-bedroom home for the purposes of housing immigrants brought to New Zealand.

As part of her occupation, Fernando supplies workers to kiwi businesses and had disclosed this to the property manager who was concerned at the potential number of occupants.

It was agreed there would be no more than five people living at the house with the possibility of families joining them short term from time to time when they came to New Zealand.

However, the owner of the property told the tribunal the first time he checked the premises, there were nine people at the house.

Fernando told the owner that in her agreement with the property manager, she could have seven occupants permanently, and the other two were living there temporarily.

She said the accomodation she had planned for the other two had fallen through, and she was making other arrangements. Fernando also offered to pay an additional $80 per week.

In response, the owner rejected the additional payment as “insufficient” but said he could consider nine in total, five upstairs and four downstairs, provided this was subject to agreed conditions. These related to inspections and cleaning.

Negotiations were handed over to the property manager but discussions “went nowhere” and on April 23, the owner issued a 14-day notice on the grounds the tenant had exceeded the maximum number of tenants.

The notice gave Fernando until May 9 to rectify the situation but just a week after it was sent, the owner visited the property again to repair a clothes dryer and counted 10 occupants.

The migrants told the owner they were sharing rooms, with one person sleeping on the lounge floor in order to give others some privacy. The owner was also shown a tenancy agreement which provided for a rental of $200 per week.

The owner applied to the tribunal for immediate termination of tenancy and compensation of $14,000 for subletting without landlord’s consent.

Fernando in evidence given to the tribunal, said during the owner’s first visit, two of the occupants were not supposed to be there, and she got them to leave.

Fernando was “adamant” she was entitled to have seven occupants, and said the others had been temporary.

At the request of the Tribunal, Fernando produced copies of her agreements with the occupants. They are headed “flat/house-sharing agreement” and referred to Fernando as “Head Tenant” and the occupant as a “Flatmate”.

The agreements are with exceptions, terminable by either party on 14 days notice in writing and included rent, outgoings and a bond equivalent to four weeks rent.

Tenancy adjudicator Alan Henwood​ determined the purpose of the tenancy was to enable subletting for commercial gain and the tribunal found the tenant in breach of the tenancy agreement.

Henwood said by approximately January 10, 2023, Fernando had signed up six subtenancies and by March 2023, when there were clearly still arguments as to the permissible number, she had signed up a total of eight subtenancies.

“This indicates a blatant disregard for any limitation on numbers. In that regard, I disregard the “casual” or temporary occupants regarded in tenancy law as permissible.”

Henwood concluded the owner was entitled to terminate the contract but said the tribunal had insufficient information to approve the application for compensation, and it was dismissed.