Hastings landlord ordered to pay $33,000 to tenants who lived in converted implement shed

An aerial image of part of the orchard where the tenants lived. The building marked "accommodation" was the converted implement shed where they lived, while the building marked "implement shed" was converted into a mechanics workshop. Photo / Supplied

A Hastings landlord has been ordered to pay more than $33,000 to two tenants who lived in a converted implement shed on an orchard for years.

Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator Tracey Lee-Lewis found the building had no consents, no viable form of heating and incomplete insulation, had a sewage system that regularly overflowed, and was in a place that regularly exposed the tenants to excessive noise.

In a recent decision, Lewis issued fines against the Mannering Family Trust for having no tenancy agreement, no rent records or receipts, issuing retaliatory notice, failure to repair and maintain the premises, breach of quiet enjoyment, wastewater issues and power outages.

Of the total amount, $19,500 was a 50 per cent reimbursement of rent over the past three years, due to the premises not having a building or resource consent and being unlawful as a result.

The tenants, who were granted name suppression after the ruling, lived in the orchard shed in St Georges Road that was next to a larger implement shed building.

The first of the two tenants worked on the orchard and began living there in 2015, while the second tenant began living there in 2019.

The arrangement for living there was through verbal agreement and continued largely without conflict until the landlord decided to convert the larger, unoccupied implement shed into an orchard mechanic’s workshop in July.

The tenants provided audio to the tribunal demonstrating they were exposed to excessive noise from renovations, the mechanics’ workshop and orchard workers playing loud music.

The adjudicator determined that a termination notice eventually given to the tenants by the landlord was retaliatory.

“From what I have seen, the conflict between the parties was a result of the tenants asserting their rights over the tenancy. My clear impression is that the landlord does not have a strong understanding of what the tenants’ legal rights are in relation to the tenancy, and their mutual obligations under the RTA,” Lee-Lewis said.

Lee-Lewis accepted evidence that the sewerage system was overflowing regularly for 11 months, from December 2020 to October 2021.

She noted the previous tenant of the premises, another employee of the orchard, had told the tribunal the sewage issue had made him decide to move out in 2015.

The tenants were instructed to not use a fireplace inside the premises due to it being non-compliant, but no other form of heating was provided, the building was not fully insulated and the premises had no smoke alarms.

Damages were awarded on top of compensation to the tenants based on several factors.

“The landlord was clearly made aware of the tenants’ concerns about the state of repair of the premises but did not adequately address those concerns. In terms of intention, I consider that the while the landlord did not act from malice, the failure to properly address the ongoing issues was intentional,” Lee-Lewis wrote.

“There was ongoing stress and discomfort caused to the tenants by the landlord’s approach to the condition and maintenance of the premises.”

In her decision to issue damages for the lack of a tenancy agreement, Lee-Lewis wrote the landlords were “completely oblivious of their obligations under the RTA”.

She determined that the landlords’ failure to keep adequate records of rent or to provide receipts was intentional as they had considered it a casual arrangement.

Adrian Mannering, trustee and representative of the Mannering Family Trust, told Hawke’s Bay Today the premises were now being used as an orchard office.

“We’ve got other orchards that we’ve got a house or two on, but now we are very conscious that you have to be compliant in every single detail and have every single detail in writing,” Mannering said.

He said a tenant involved in this case had lived there with no problems for seven years.

“There was no intent on our part or anything,” Mannering said.

“When we bought it in 1999, we were oblivious to the fact that all the consents weren’t there.

“Nothing can be in that sort of old-school handshake verbal form any more.”