Landlord let 'uninhabitable' property to sister-in-law

RNZ News

a day ago

Photo:
Supplied / MBIE
A landlord who rented a property that was "never intended for anyone to live in" to his sister-in-law has been told to pay $5900 in exemplary damages.
The identities of the landlord and tenant have been suppressed.
The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment's tenancy compliance and investigations team (TCIT) opened an investigation after it received a complaint in August 2023 from a social assistance provider.
The woman was living in a dwelling on the landlord's property and the person making the complaint believed her serious health issues were made worse by her living conditions.
The tenancy had not been intended to be permanent but little action had been taken on plans to build a fit-for-purpose cabin.
TCIT said there was visible mould, no underfloor insulation, holes in the walls and ceilings, damaged windows, roof damage, visible vegetation in the gutters and electrical cables exposed to the weather.
The tenant told TCIT the floor was uneven and flooded in the lounge in a cyclone.
She said she had a tenancy agreement but had not paid bond. The landlord did not inspect the property and had not followed through on promises to address problems.
The landlord admitted the property was not fit for human habitation and had been empty for years and was not intended to be lived in.
The Tenancy Tribunal issued an order after mediation, in which the landlord accepted breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act.
TCIT national manager Brett Wilson said landlords had obligations they must meet under the Residential Tenancies Act, which included ensuring the property was provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair.
Photo:
Supplied / MBIE
"These obligations are not optional; they are a legal requirement. It is not an excuse for the landlord to say they had not intended to rent out the premises, the fact is they did and that means they have a responsibility to comply with the Act.
"Despite raising multiple issues with the landlord, who is also a family relative, these matters were either ignored or not fully resolved. In one instance, on being advised there was a large gaping hole in the end room, the landlord said he told the tenant to close the door and not to use the room as a living space," he said.
The tribunal adjudicator was satisfied the unlawful acts were committed intentionally and ordered the landlord to pay $5900 in exemplary damages to the tenant and reimbursement of the application filing fee.
Photo:
Supplied / MBIE
In another case dealt with by the tribunal recently, tenants wanted to remain in a property that the landlords argued was uninhabitable.
The landlords have been told to pay $1800 in compensation to their tenants over the way they handled repairs to the property.
The tenants reported a leak in the laundry floor in March.
A water pipe was found to have split and water was spraying on to the underneath of the floor.
Access was difficult and a plumber had to put a rag over the pipe so the leaking water went to the ground instead.
To fix it properly, the floor in the laundry and bathroom needed to be lifted, and pipe work replaced. The bathroom vanity and shower had to be replaced and there was also damage in the kitchen.
The work was estimated to take two weeks.
Photo:
Supplied / MBIE
The tribunal adjudicator accepted it would be difficult for the tenants to live in the premises for that time, and it would be hard for contractors to do the work.
But the tenants did not agree to leave.
The landlords gave them a 14-day notice to terminate on the basis the premises were uninhabitable.
When they did not comply, the landlords issued a trespass notice but police told them it was a case for the Tenancy Tribunal.
The tribunal adjudicator said the premises were habitable - a builder's reference to them not being "livable" referred to while the work was being done, when someone could fall through the floor.
"The landlords' pressure on the tenants was persistent and I have no hesitation in finding that it amounted to harassment. It followed an invalid termination notice and so it was an interference with the tenants' quiet enjoyment of the premises. That is an unlawful act.
"Because the landlords had some reason to think that their notice was valid, I find that the unlawful act was not intentional. But the tenants are entitled to compensation.
"I accept that this has been an extremely unpleasant experience for the tenants. The process began with an unlawful notice and things went from bad to much worse when the landlords employed 'self-help' methods to resolve the situation in their favour instead of coming to the Tribunal for a resolution. I find that an award of $1800, being six weeks rent, is appropriate."