The tenants told the tribunal they had no hot water for 36 days, there were four un-hung internal doors, a rotting back porch, a large hole where a fireplace had been, an electrical fitting (main oven switch) hanging out of the wall, a laundry leak and no blinds in the kitchen, dining and laundry rooms.
In a tribunal order released recently , tribunal adjudicator Ruth Lee said she awarded damages of $1000 because the effect on the tenants was "significant and the inconvenience considerable".
"They were without hot water for bathing for 36 days of their 7-week tenancy with five young children," Lee said.
"There were safety concerns for their children in daily living. The landlord appears to have taken shortcuts by providing the house unfinished after renovations and by not paying for a professional when needed."
Lee said there was a strong public interest in deterring landlords from such conduct.
In his defence, Bhana told the tribunal the hot water cylinder was new and there was plenty of hot water before the tenancy started.
However, Lee said it was more likely there was a fault, which Bhana should have had an electrician attend to when first advised of a problem. Instead, he concluded it was a faulty fuse and replaced the fuse wire twice.
The issue was resolved after the tenancy ended when Bhana got an electrician who concluded it was a voltage problem because the wrong fuse wire was being used.
Bhana said the tenants purposely tore the switch from the wall to incriminate him but Lee said she found that "highly unlikely" and the lack of repair was consistent with the other issues not attended to around the house.
Bhana accepted there were no smoke alarms in the property, a tenancy requirement by law, and said it was an oversight.
The maximum damages that can be awarded for failing to provide smoke alarms is $4000. But since Bhana advised Lee he had not had exemplary damages awarded against him in the past, she reduced the amount to $750.
The tenants told the tribunal Jasu Bhana would show up at the property getting them to sign things and on one occasion Stephen Bhana appeared in the backyard with another man without consent. The pair were pointing and discussing things.
The tenants told the tribunal Stephen Bhana was apparently there because he had plans to move a relocatable home to the backyard area for international students but this didn't happen.
They also complained Jasu Bhana and Stephen Bhana went to their property and swore at them, using stand-over tactics and telling them they would have to leave if they didn't sign a bond form.
They also said Stephen Bhana went to the property to attend to repairs at 10pm, which they felt was an unreasonable intrusion.
But Lee although Stephen Bhana's backyard visit and the late repair visits were a breach, she did not find they amounted to harassment.
The tenants' claim that Stephen Bhana failed to lodge the bond within the required time failed because Skipper had asked him in text messages to use part of his bond money as owed rent.
What was wrong with the flat
• No hot water
• Four unhung internal doors
• Rotting back porch
• A large hole where a fireplace had been
• Electrical fitting (main oven switch) hanging out of wall
• Laundry leak
• No blinds in kitchen, dining and laundry rooms
