Wellington landlord ordered to pay $4,250 for Airbnb operation and unlawful eviction

A Wellington tenant discovered she had been sharing her rental home with paying strangers for months without knowing it. Her landlord, Frank Wang, had converted a spare bedroom into an Airbnb operation and never told her. Guests came and went, helping themselves to the kitchen, eating food from the fridge, sometimes taking her belongings. A handwritten sign in the guest room laid out house rules—no smoking indoors, bring your own towels, don't expect kitchen access—but the tenant herself had never seen it until the situation unraveled.

When the case reached the Tenancy Tribunal, the woman described the unease of living alongside unknown short-term visitors. Safety was a concern. So was the loss of quiet enjoyment in shared spaces. She had tolerated it for a time and even agreed to clean the Airbnb room for payment starting in late August 2025, but the fundamental breach remained: she had never consented to any of this. Tribunal adjudicator Kaye Stirling found that running an Airbnb operation in the home interfered with the tenant's right to peaceful occupation. Wang was ordered to pay $500 in compensation for the period before the tenant began cleaning duties.

But the Airbnb violation was only part of the problem. In mid-December, the tenant and another resident raised concerns with Wang about what they believed were inflated utility charges. They emailed him and met on December 15 to discuss the issue, but no resolution emerged. Wang, unhappy with the complaints, decided he wanted the tenant gone. That same day, he sent an email: he was giving 42 days' notice, claiming his sister-in-law would be moving in as a family member. The tenancy would end on January 26, 2026.

Wang had searched online for the rules and believed he had found a legal pathway. But then he contacted his property manager for professional advice. The manager told him something different: he could issue three weeks' notice instead. On December 16, the property manager sent a second termination notice, this one setting the end date as January 9. The tenant received conflicting instructions from her landlord's representatives and, shocked and stressed, complied with the shorter timeline and moved out.

Stirling ruled both notices unlawful. The tenancy was periodic—no fixed end date had ever been agreed—which meant Wang could not terminate it on the grounds he claimed. The tribunal found no evidence that a family member was genuinely moving in. The notices were invalid. For the unlawful termination and the disruption it caused, Wang was ordered to pay $2,500. The tenant's claim that the eviction was retaliatory—issued in response to her utility complaints—was dismissed, though the timing suggested a pattern.

There were other breaches. Wang had never lodged the bond. The tenancy agreement was incomplete, with no start or end date filled in. Most significantly, he had left blank the Healthy Homes Standards compliance statement, a legal requirement under the Residential Tenancies Act. Stirling noted that Wang, as an experienced landlord managing multiple properties, could not claim ignorance of his obligations. The form itself contained templates for the required information. These failures warranted exemplary damages. Wang was ordered to pay a further $1,250.

In total, the tenant received $4,250. She had lost her home on unlawful notice, lived with undisclosed guests in her shared spaces, and had to navigate a landlord who either did not understand or chose to ignore his legal responsibilities. The tribunal's decision stands as a reminder that landlords cannot simply operate as they wish, and that the law exists to protect tenants from exactly this kind of treatment.