Pakowhai Rd after Gabrielle - the community was one of the worst-hit by the cyclone. Photo / Paul Taylor
Pakowhai Rd after Gabrielle - the community was one of the worst-hit by the cyclone. Photo / Paul Taylor
A woman who lost her home in Cyclone Gabrielle has been awarded more than $7000 after a landlord responded to her situation by offering her a rental to move into that was also flood hit.
The woman was confronted with water running murky and brown, the kitchen sink notattached securely, no seal between the sink and the counter and no sealant around the hand basins in the bathroom.
When she raised her concerns about the state of the 1612 Pakowhai Rd property, less than a day after the agreed start date of the tenancy, landlord Paul Martin Harris told her she should leave.
He then did not return her bond and advanced rent payment for more than seven months.
Harris was ordered in a Tenancy Tribunal decision by adjudicator Bryan King to pay the tenant, whose name was suppressed, $7364 in exemplary damages for unlawful termination of the tenancy, failure to lodge the bond, and as compensation for storage and fuel costs.
The tenant made a social media post on April 8, 2023, looking for a two-bedroom rental.
Harris responded and, after an initial viewing, told the tenant on April 28 that she could move in after further flood remediation work had been completed in two weeks.
Both parties signed a tenancy agreement and the tenant moved in on the agreed start date of May 14, 2023, directly paying $1440 for her bond and rent in advance on May 15.
A displaced Hawke's Bay woman searching for a home after Cyclone Gabrielle was provided with a Pakowhai Rd property still going through its own cyclone repairs. Photo / Google Maps
Upon moving in she found the problems with murky water, the sink and basins.
A text message conversation between the tenant and Harris began at 5.03am on May 15 where Harris “consistently” offered for the tenancy not to proceed if the tenant was not comfortable.
The tenant made it clear that she wanted the tenancy to continue, but she eventually vacated the premises and indicated to Harris on May 17 that she would not welcome any further communication.
The tenant moved into temporary accommodation with her belongings in storage and remained there at the time of the Tenancy Tribunal hearing.
“The landlord seems to have clearly accepted that the premises were not in a reasonable state of repair when the tenancy started. He asked the tenant not to move in for that reason,” King wrote.
Despite finding that Harris had breached his obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair and able to be safely inhabited, King said in the June 21 decision he did not believe it would be “just” to award exemplary damages for this aspect, given the circumstances.
“In the aftermath of Cyclone Gabrielle, many property owners were struggling to return premises to habitable condition. It is understandable that some of the final remediation work at the premises had not been completed by the intended start date and the landlord seems not to have been aware of the issues with the water quality,” King wrote.
King found Harris had unlawfully kept the tenant’s bond money without lodging it at the Bond Centre, aggravated by the fact he had told the tenant he would return it when he asked her to end the tenancy.
“The landlord says that the tenant made it hard for him to redress the issue by making it clear that she wanted no contact from him.
“While that may not have been wise or helpful given the issues that needed to be sorted out between the parties, the landlord was able to arrange for the bond to be repaid after the tenant filed her application and I am not aware of evidence showing he could not have done so immediately as he should have,” King wrote.
The bond and rent in advance were paid back on January 30 this year, after a Tenancy Tribunal claim was filed.
Although the tenant eventually agreed to move out through text, King agreed with her claim that Harris had unlawfully ended the tenancy.
“The only legal basis for ending the tenancy rather than completing [remediation] work, would have been by the parties’ mutual agreement.
“The evidence about the tenant’s desperation to find a home and her eagerness to move into these premises does not fit comfortably with a suggestion that she willingly gave up the tenancy,” King wrote.
“In my view, the landlord’s actions in declining to meet his legal obligations and instead requiring the tenant to leave the premises, in a very difficult accommodation environment, make a significant award of exemplary damages just.”
James Pocock joined Hawke’s Bay Today in 2021 and writes breaking news and features, with a focus on the environment, local government and post-cyclone issues in the region. He has a keen interest in finding the bigger picture in research and making it more accessible to audiences. He lives in Napier. james.pocock@nzme.co.nz
