Tenancy Tribunal orders landlord's widow to pay ex-tenant $6500 over unlawful eviction

RNZ News

12 hours ago

By Catherine Hutton, Open Justice reporter Wellington of
A tenant has been awarded $6500 after the Tenancy Tribunal found he had been unlawfully evicted from a substandard home (file photo).
Photo:
Supplied/ Unsplash -Sandy Millar
A tenancy that soured over accusations of unpaid rent escalated into a legal battle between the former tenant and the landlord, with one firing claims of drug abuse and the other of squalid living conditions.
The conflict, which began more than two years ago, has now been examined by the Tenancy Tribunal and a ruling has been made that the landlord, Ben Po Ching, rented the man a leaky, substandard home.
Before the ruling was made, Po Ching died and his widow has been left to cough up the thousands of dollars the tribunal ordered must be paid to the former tenant.
According to the tribunal's recent decision, matters came to a head in April 2023, when Po Ching told the tenant, whose name is suppressed, he owed rent on the Wellington property.
Po Ching followed up with a text saying he'd consulted with the tribunal, and the man had 10 days to pay the rent arrears and 48 hours to leave the house, if the money wasn't paid.
Later that month, Po Ching served the tenant with a trespass notice, refusing to let him back into the house, because of rent arrears.
The tenant said he only became aware of the notice after receiving a text from another tenant, saying his belongings would be boxed and left on the street for him to collect.
Five days later, Po Ching again texted the tenant, telling him he wasn't allowed back into the house.
The tenant then turned to the tribunal, applying for compensation and exemplary damages, claiming the house wasn't in a reasonable condition, there were no grounds to end the tenancy and his belongings had disappeared at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord counterclaimed for rent arrears, compensation and exemplary damages, alleging the tenant had used drugs at the house.
To support his claim of illegal drug use at the house, Po Ching provided photos of the tenant's room.
The photo showed syringes, drug utensils, marijuana, pills and "a bag of white powder" sitting on top of a dressing table, beside the bed in the tenant's room.
The decision said Po Ching called the police.
However, charges were not laid, because "the tenant was not there when the drugs were found and because it was a shared house", the decision said.
Po Ching also claimed he had the room tested for meth, which he said reported "high results".
He then discarded the tenant's belongings, claiming it was for "everyone's safety", but the tenant said the drugs and utensils were not his, and he did not use drugs while at the house.
He also said he was suspicious of the timing of the photos, saying the drugs "appeared" in his room, when Po Ching was trying to get him to move out.
The tribunal found there was no supporting documentation that the tenant's room was contaminated with methamphetamine.
"What is most surprising is that the police did not charge any of the tenants, even though there was a dressing table full of what appear to be illegal drugs," the decision said.
It dismissed the landlord's claims that the tenant used the premises for an unlawful purpose and the associated claim for compensation.
In turn, the tenant argued the landlord failed to meet his obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act by renting a house that wasn't in a reasonable state of cleanliness or repair, and it failed to meet Healthy Homes standards.
To support his claim, the tenant provided photos and a video showing water dripping through a light fitting in the living room when it rained, leaving the lounge carpet wet and smelly. There was a hole in the door to his bedroom, the shower was mouldy and broken, there were issues with the toilet and there were no smoke alarms.
The tribunal found there was insufficient evidence to support the tenant's claim of uncleanliness when he moved in, but agreed the house was not in a reasonable state of repair.
It also found the home failed to meet Healthy Homes Standards, noting from the photos that it seemed most likely the house was "draughty".
The tribunal found there were also issues relating to stormwater, surface water, groundwater and ventilation, and there were no extractor fans in the bathroom or kitchen.
The tenant said Po Ching was well aware of the state of the house, which he visited frequently.
In response, Po Ching maintained that the house was "liveable".
Po Ching's lawyer told the tribunal the house was only meant to be "transitional accommodation" for the tenant.
He submitted it was reasonable to stay in for a short period and because it was an informal arrangement, no tenancy agreement was signed.
The lawyer said Po Ching always intended to renovate the house and that was done after the tenant moved out, but the tenant denied it was explained to him that the tenancy was intended to be short-term and he'd lived there almost six months, paying $170 a week.
The tribunal found the Residential Tenancies Act applied to the tenancy, noting that even if they accepted the landlord's submissions in full, there are no exclusions under the act that allowed Po Ching to charge rent for a substandard house because it was only short-term.
Po Ching most likely knew the condition of the house, and breached his duty to repair and maintain the house, it found.
"The decision to charge rent and take a bond from a tenant in exchange for a house that leaked and did not meet Healthy Homes standards requirements must have been intentional. It seems unlikely to me that Mr Po Ching, who was in the building trade, did not know about the Healthy Homes standards.
"The effect for the tenant was that he felt trapped, because the house was a depressing place to live."
The decision also found the landlord had ended the tenancy without grounds, noting he had acted intentionally, and caused the tenant stress and panic, because he was no longer able to access his belongings.
Finally, the tribunal found Po Ching had prevented the tenant from collecting his belongings, because of his belief the tenant owed him rent.
The tenant told the tribunal the loss of his items had been devastating.
He said he lost tools and personal items, and had only managed to retrieve his television, which he collected three days before the trespass notice was issued.
However, because the tenant was unable to provide evidence of the $16,300 he claimed in losses, he was only awarded $1000 for exemplary damages in regard to this claim.
The tribunal ordered Po Ching to pay the tenant $6500, less $971 for rent arrears. This included $2000 each in exemplary damages for the lack of maintenance and terminating the tenancy early, as well as the $1000 for his belongings.
Because Po Ching died last year, the tribunal ruled the order could be enforced against his widow.
*
This story originally appeared in the
New Zealand Herald
.
Photo:
Open Justice