Titirangi tenants win $5500 compensation on $1000/week home for 22-week long works

West Auckland where the house was in Titirangi. Photo / Richard Robinson

A property management business has been found liable to pay a tenant $5500 compensation for problems at a $1000/week Titirangi home where work meant to take up to three days dragged on for a lengthy 22 weeks.

“The tenants were initially told that the works would take two to three days,” according to the Tenancy Tribunal decision which heard the complaint about water ingress.

The tenants’ names were suppressed, as was their address although the area was named.

When the owner ordered the roof to be fixed, work took 22 weeks and became extremely disruptive for the family who rented the house with their children, the decision said.

Supercity Property Management acted as the agent for property owner Timothy Stewart who “apologised unreservedly” to the tenants for all the problems they endured.

He was “horrified” at the way the tenancy had been run and Supercity no longer manages that stand-alone home.

A leak in the kitchen around the window was apparently from water entering the wall from the roof and then dripping out through the top of the window.

The landlord agreed to do moisture testing but the testing never occurred.

The roof was replaced causing huge disruption for a period of 22 weeks.

The tenants were not given notice that the works were about to happen until an initial delivery of materials arrived unexpectedly on a HIAB truck one evening last July.

Their lives were disrupted by scaffolding going up and contractors’ constant arrival, frequently without notice.

They suffered ongoing noise and debris and their children could not play outside at times due to safety reasons when the contractors were working, often at unexpected times. The garden was filled with sharp roofing clips and nails.

The tenants said they were expected to deal with the contractors directly because there was a succession of three different contractors brought in to do the job.

One of the contractors broke the skylight in the bathroom, the temporary repair was ineffective and that leaked over a two-month period. When the skylight was replaced without prior notice while the tenants were away, the contractor left debris on the floor.

The tenants complained could not use the entire driveway or parking for two months as the roofing material and debris was stored there, despite their requests that it be removed.

“They were accommodating and helpful even as the work stretched on and on. They liaised with the contractors directly and reported to the landlord, all of which took up time. One of the tenants worked at home and the work caused them considerable disruption,” the ruling said.

Disruption meant the tenants would often have to leave with their children but they did not know when contractors were going to arrive, so it was difficult for them to make plans.

“They found the whole situation very stressful. When it rained they had to deal with the ongoing leak in the skylight and they were constantly cleaning up debris left by the contractors,” the decision said.

They quite reasonably sought a rent reduction from the landlord due to the impact of the works, but not only was this declined but the landlord served them with a notice increasing the rent to $1150/week last December, just as they were about to travel overseas.

“The tenants gave notice and moved out of the property in January 2024, despite enjoying the area and having made friends in the street. The tenants sought compensation of $5500, being a rent reduction of $250 per week for the entire 22-week period that works were taking place on the roof. Their claim is based on loss of amenity and breach of quiet enjoyment as they did not have full use of the property during that time,” the decision said.

Stewart said at the hearing that the property manager who had been managing the tenancy no longer worked for him and that, having reviewed the tenants’ claim and all of the evidence filed, he was horrified by the way the tenancy had been managed.

The landlord readily accepted that there should have been a rent reduction to compensate the tenants for the issues experienced and that the amount sought by the tenants is reasonable and appropriate.

The tribunal awarded the tenants the $5500 they had sought, saying if there had not been an agreement to pay, there would be no hesitation in awarding that amount sought by the tenants in compensation.

Anne Gibson has been the Herald’s property editor for 24 years, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.