Rats, fires and floods - it's all in a day's work

Lawn spraying, discriminatory advertising, an intrusive property sales campaign and a rat infestation resulted in landlords being fined or losing rent.

But tenants also broke the law with one state house tenant hiding from police in a neighbours' place and another staining a new driveway with a vehicle which leaked oil. Other tenants were dogged by fires and floods, resulting in their landlords taking action against them.

The Tenancy Tribunal has released a series of decisions showing how tenants and landlords copped fines or lost rent for various offences.

A New Plymouth case, Curtis Stark v Western First National Real Estate, heard how a tenant's lawn was chemically sprayed by a lawn maintenance contractor.

"The first time the tenant knew of the spraying was when he discovered a business card in his mailbox which had been left by the contractor. That card advised the tenant that the lawn had been sprayed and that the tenant should refrain from mowing the lawn for three days.

"The tribunal held that chemically spraying the tenant's lawn without reference to the tenant constituted a breach of the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment," it said.

In a Christchurch case, Ravi Sanyal v Jai Holdings Australasia, a landlord was found to have broken the law in advertising a property for "international students only". The tribunal found this breached the Human Rights Act, discriminating on race and ethnic national origins. A $500 award was made and the landlord was issued with a caution.

An Auckland case, Shagufta Jabeen v Deanne Ward (Douglas), was a dispute over a campaign to sell a property.

"The landlord had not provided the tenant with any compensation for the inconvenience.

"The holding of open homes on four weekends [both days of the weekend] together with the auction did amount to interference with the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment, and held that it was appropriate that the tenant be compensated for the interference."

The tribunal awarded one weeks' rent in compensation.

A serious rat infestation at a Christchurch property resulted in major damage to water pipes so the place was uninhabitable. Anatoli and Yana Khorozova v AJ McPherson & Associates, trading at Ray White, resulted in the tenants getting compensation.

Extensive building work resulted in a Waitakere tenant getting compensation equivalent to four weeks' rent. In Kraayenhoff Investments v Lisa Hallie, a rental property needed remedial work on an upstairs deck but the landlord worked there almost every Saturday 10am-4pm from July 2008 to January. Despite this lengthy period of work, renovation was not completed.

"The tribunal found that the extent and time of the landlord's activities at the premises amounted to an interruption of the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the premises."

A North Shore case, Michael Vickers v Brent de Kock, heard how a fire left premises uninhabitable. The tenancy agreement said "no smoking" but the tenant's mother-in-law lived there and was a smoker. The Fire Service cited possible cause as ignition from a stray cigarette butt. The landlord wanted money for having to employ a private security guard to keep the place secure while the place was being repaired. The tribunal dismissed the claim, partly on the grounds the place was able to be properly secured after the fire.

Bribank Property Management v Jeremy Hayman and Helen Tregida was a claim over an Auckland apartment.

The tenant struck a fire sprinkler, flooding the place and other apartments, the stairwell, landings, a ground-floor lunchroom and basement. Bribank wanted compensation but the tribunal said the tenants were not liable because properties other than the one rented were affected.

Housing NZ took a case against Manukau tenant Pamela Brown over how she attempted to evade police by hiding in a neighbours' wardrobe. The tribunal found her actions constituted a gross invasion of the neighbours' privacy.

A Tauranga case over squatters, The Bishops Choice v Bella Arapera Robinson, heard how buyers of a property wanted possession. But the previous owners refused to leave. The tribunal found they were squatters and it made a possession order.

Housing NZ v Allan Wilkins heard how the state house tenant was the landlord of two other properties. The tribunal terminated his Auckland tenancy.

TENANCY TRIBUNAL
* Special court for landlords and tenants
* Costs $20 to get a hearing.
* Run by Ministry of Justice.
* Compensation can be awarded up to $12,000.
* After that, parties go to district or high courts