They also went in search of some compensation. They applied to the Tenancy Tribunal for the landlord’s attempt to terminate their tenancy without grounds, retaliatory notice, notice to quit, failure to maintain the property and breaching Healthy Homes Standards.
The tribunal found in favour of their claim about the lack of maintenance and awarded them $3600 in exemplary damages.
In a decision recently released online, tribunal adjudicator C Price rejected the landlord’s excuse that the cost of doing the maintenance jobs requested had far exceeded the rental income and that it had been hard to get a plumber for three years.
That attitude was “unacceptable”, the adjudicator said.
The family had endured “constant damp and mould, leaking ceilings and substandard housing conditions”.
They had young children, including a son who had been “sick from the damp”.
“It has been an extremely stressful and frustrating situation for a long time for their family.”
In addition to the holes in the wall and ceilings, the family had also repeatedly complained about:
- Broken latch on lounge windows,
- Leaking kitchen insinkerator,
- Depleted bathroom sealant,
- Broken shower handle,
- Blocked bath,
- Bathroom extractor fan that didn’t work properly,
- Laundry windows without glass, with rotting frames and water moisture,
- Missing damper knobs on the wood burner,
- Leaky garage roof and a garage door too heavy for its hinges,
- Spouting that needed clearing and reaffixing, and a loose downpipe,
- Leak in the hot-water system, which the tenants said damaged the hallway wall and upped their power bills
- Leaks around the chimney after the roof was replaced last year, with water dripping onto the fireplace in heavy rain,
- The house being damper than it should be and having regular mould.
In dismissing the tenants’ other claims, the tribunal said the landlord’s decision to terminate the tenancy wasn’t without grounds or retaliatory. It was unlikely to have been triggered by the latest complaints by the family, which were essentially just a repeat of earlier ones.
The landlord had produced evidence he intended to do maintenance work to the interior of the house and had been advised by a builder it wouldn’t be safe for the family to remain there during that time.
The tribunal agreed with the safety assessment. It noted the landlord’s comments he was not willing to “have that conversation” with the tenants as to whether they could eventually move back in. The landlord said the cost of the work would be significant and the tenants had been paying “very low rent”.
The family’s claim that the landlord breached Healthy Homes Standards couldn’t be upheld as the tenancy began before those regulations were introduced and the terms of it had remained unchanged.
The tenants claimed $1800 in compensation for unnecessarily high electricity bills they said were caused by the leaking hot-water system. However, the adjudicator said they lacked necessary evidence.
Since the family had won a significant aspect of its case, their request for name suppression was granted.
The landlord’s request for anonymity was also granted because he finally appeared to be making efforts “to bring the house up to a better standard” and “because of the importance of available housing for tenants in the Wairoa region”.
However, the adjudicator warned the landlord that suppression might not be considered if there were any future similar claims against him.
