The woman, who has name suppression, told the Tenancy Tribunal that guests often accessed the kitchen, food in the fridge and sometimes used or took her belongings.
A sign inside the guest room read: “Hi, Dear Guests Welcome to Home! Some house rules to ensure that we can offer an amazing experience for you guys and the future’s guests as well. Main Rules: No smoking indoors. We don’t offer kitchen. Use your own two towels in the room”.
The tenant said the presence of short-term paying guests she did not know raised safety concerns and affected her peaceful use of shared areas.
But she also told the tribunal she decided to tolerate the situation and agreed to clean the Airbnb room for payment from August 25, 2025.
Tribunal adjudicator Kaye Stirling said in her recently released decision that running an Airbnb operation interfered with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
She awarded the tenant $500 in compensation for the period up to the date she began cleaning the Airbnb room.
In addition to her claim of breach of quiet enjoyment, the tenant applied to the tribunal for other alleged issues throughout the tenancy.
She believed the rental agreement was fixed for a year following general discussions with the landlord.
However, she acknowledged they did not discuss and agree on a specific end date, and she did not return a tenancy agreement to the landlord with a start or end date filled out.
Wang told the tribunal he believed the tenancy was periodic.
Stirling ruled the tenancy was periodic, without an end date. This meant either party could terminate the agreement after giving the required notice under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
Between December 12 and 15, 2025, the tenant and a second tenant at the property raised concerns with the landlord about possible overcharging of utilities. They emailed him and the parties met to discuss the issue on December 15, but were unable to resolve matters.
Wang told the tribunal, and confirmed at the hearing, that he was unhappy with the tenant repeatedly raising issues about utilities and other matters, so decided he wanted to end the tenancy.
On December 15, he emailed the tenant: “I am notice you. From 15 Dec. I given you 42 days to move out….As we moving back in as our main home. The end date is 26 Jan 2026 12 noon…”
Wang told the tribunal he searched online and discovered the tenancy could be terminated on 42 days’ notice if a family member was moving into the premises.
He said he thought his sister-in-law could move in with him and his partner.
After serving this notice, Wang contacted his property manager, who was managing other tenancies for him, for professional advice.
Wang confirmed at the hearing that he told his property manager he no longer wanted this tenant at the property. He said the manager advised him he could issue three weeks’ notice to end the tenancy on January 9, 2026.
On December 16, the property manager emailed the tenant with a second notice to terminate the tenancy on January 9.
Stirling ruled that, because it was not a fixed-term tenancy, Wang had no right to terminate the tenancy on that date and the notice was invalid and unlawful.
The tenant told the tribunal she was shocked by the notice but complied and vacated the premises. She said the process of having to move out so quickly was stressful and unsettling.
Wang was ordered to pay the tenant $2500 for the unlawful termination.
The tenant claimed the notice was retaliatory and issued in response to her complaints about utility charges, but Stirling dismissed the claim.
The tenant also sought awards of exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond, failure to include required information in the tenancy agreement, and failure to provide a Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliance statement.
The landlord did not complete the HHS compliance statement, although the form was attached to the tenancy agreement. Leaving it blank was a breach of the RTA.
Wang also failed to lodge the bond and fully complete the tenancy agreement, which had no commencement or end date.
“The landlord knew or ought to have known his obligations and cannot plead ignorance of the law, particularly when he has experience as a landlord,” Stirling said.
“The failure to include all information and the HHS compliance statement is even more inexcusable because the tenancy agreement form used contains templates for inserting that information.”
Stirling found these breaches warranted exemplary damages and ordered Wang to pay a further $1250.
Brianna McIlraith is a Queenstown-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the lower South Island. She has been a journalist since 2018 and has had a strong interest in business and financial journalism.
Join the NZ Herald’s Open Justice team for Case by Case, a video and podcast series examining the disputes and decisions making headlines across New Zealand.