West Auckland Airbnb Earnings: Tenant Fined $18,000

Airbnb Hustle Turns Sour: Tenant Ordered to Repay Landlord After Secret Short-Term Rental Scheme

Auckland, New Zealand – A seemingly straightforward tenancy agreement has devolved into a cautionary tale for both landlords and tenants, highlighting the importance of clear dialog and adherence to the rules. The case, recently decided by a tenancy tribunal, involves a tenant, identified as Kath, who secretly listed her rented property on Airbnb, generating income without the landlord’s explicit consent.

The landlord, Burkinshaw, only became aware of the unauthorized Airbnb activity in February 2024, after neighbors raised concerns.A quick search on the Airbnb platform confirmed her suspicions: the downstairs area of her property was being actively marketed for short-term rentals.

According to documentation Kath willingly provided,the property had been rented out a staggering 47 times between July 2023 and June 2024.

Burkinshaw confronted Kath on March 4, 2024, and there have been no further bookings since. While Kath claimed she had received approval to rent out the property on Airbnb, an email presented as evidence painted a different picture. In the March 2024 email, Burkinshaw acknowledged it could be a possibility, but stressed that conditions would need to be discussed.

Tenancy adjudicator Christian Lamdin ruled that these communications “did not amount to permission for short-term rentals” and that Burkinshaw had acted swiftly once the activity was discovered. He stated, “On this information I am persuaded the tenant had not sought permission and the landlord had not given permission for the tenant to conduct an Airbnb enterprise.”

The tribunal ordered Kath to repay Burkinshaw the profits she made from the unauthorized Airbnb rentals, emphasizing the principle that “the defendant must give up the gains made to the party whose rights have been infringed.” The exact amount Kath must repay is not specified in the provided information.

the relationship between Burkinshaw and Kath further deteriorated when, in October 2024, Kath repeatedly denied Burkinshaw access to the property while the landlord was trying to show it to prospective buyers. The tribunal heard that Kath was upset after finding Burkinshaw on the property with three other people. While the tribunal acknowledged the strained relationship, it deemed Kath’s refusal to allow entry unreasonable and retaliatory, awarding her $200 for the incident but siding with Burkinshaw on the access issue. The tribunal noted that a landlord is not required to provide information about whom they are bringing through the property, stating, “If a landlord wishes to keep their affairs private, as with a tenant, they have that right.”

Burkinshaw claimed the delays caused by Kath’s actions cost her $16,800 due to a drop in bank investment rates.

Matt Ball from the New Zealand Property Investors federation commented on the case, calling it “unusual, but not unheard of” and a valuable lesson for both landlords and tenants. “Sub-letting does happen, but it’s crucial everyone is in agreement first and the rules around it are clear,” Ball stated. He cautioned landlords against allowing sub-letting, emphasizing the loss of control over who is using the property. “If you do allow sub-letting or holiday rentals, make sure your landlord insurance covers you in case anything goes wrong,” he advised.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of clear communication, written agreements, and mutual respect in landlord-tenant relationships. It also highlights the potential pitfalls of engaging in unauthorized sub-letting activities, which can lead to significant financial repercussions.