James Truong housed 22 workers in a five-bedroom house, garages and a shed. Photo / RNZ
James Truong housed 22 workers in a five-bedroom house, garages and a shed. Photo / RNZ
By RNZ
A Queenstown landlord chose to ignore tenancy rules housing 22 mainly migrant workers in a five-bedroom house, converted garages and a shed, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment says.
James Truong has been ordered to pay $113,723.56 for multiple breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act as wellas refund 40% of rent paid by the tenants lodged in an unlawful boarding house.
The ministry’s tenancy compliance and investigations team found the house had failed to meet healthy homes standards and Truong had interfered with the tenants’ power supply as well as posting invalid rent increases and harassing a tenant
The team had advised Truong to stop using the building as a boarding house in 2020 but a complaint in 2023 revealed 11 people living in the five-bedroom house, and a further 11 people in two converted garages and a shed.
Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team (TCIT) national manager, Brett Wilson, said Truong was an experienced landlord who would have been well aware of his obligations and responsibilities under the act.
James Truong was ordered to pay $113,723.56 for multiple breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act. Photo / RNZ
“Mr Truong knew the rules but chose to ignore them. There was significant non-compliance in this case with multiple breaches of the act ranging from failure to comply with healthy homes and insulation statement requirements to interfering with the supply of electricity.
“The level of damages awarded reflects the seriousness of the non-compliance in this case and the number of people affected,” Wilson said.
Wilson said the tenants were in a vulnerable situation given most of them were new to the country.
“Many of the tenants were overseas workers on working holiday visas who had little knowledge of their rights as tenants in New Zealand. They were also working in a location with a shortage of rental accommodation which made them vulnerable to a landlord who was knowingly operating outside of the Residential Tenancies Act.”
Adjudicator R Woodhouse rejected Truong’s claims that the house was safe and compliant and he was simply helping his tenants out.
Woodhouse noted the commercial levels of rent charged at the premises were not consistent with that approach, and when attention from authorities came onto the premises, the tenancies were abruptly terminated.
Truong was also issued with a three-year restraining order from committing any further unlawful acts related to operating a boarding house.
