Landlord Ordered to Compensate Tenant Over Unhygienic Living Conditions

A landlord in Timaru has been ordered to pay a tenant $3,400 after the property was deemed “completely unhygienic” by the Tenancy Tribunal. The tenant, who lived in the home with his 12-year-old son, stopped paying rent for nearly three months in protest due to the severe living conditions before bringing the case to the tribunal.

According to the tribunal’s ruling, the tenant had been residing at the property since August 2024 and was paying $450 per week. Despite raising several concerns about the rental’s condition, he initially hesitated to lodge complaints for fear of conflict. Ultimately, he commissioned a Healthy Homes inspection that revealed alarming issues, including a lack of insulation, leaking windows, pervasive black mould, and a toilet that was not securely attached to the floor and emitted a sewage smell.

The tribunal adjudicator, Deidre Watson, described the findings as indicative of the property being in “appalling condition.” She emphasized that “these premises are not suitable for a child to be living in.” The inspection also noted that the property had holes in the floor, water damage from leaks, and rotting weatherboards, rendering it non-compliant with Healthy Homes regulations.

The tribunal awarded the tenant a total of $7,800 in compensation, which was offset against the outstanding rent claim of $4,300 from the landlord, resulting in a net award of $3,400. Watson expressed concern about the landlord’s casual approach to legal obligations, stating, “I consider this landlord to be very ambivalent towards the notion of observing her obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act.”

In her response to the tribunal’s findings, the landlord, identified as Miers, claimed she had acted out of compassion when renting to the tenant, who had a troubled background. Miers stated that the tenant had assured her he was turning his life around and needed urgent housing. She did not contest the inspection’s results but mentioned her attempts to address maintenance issues were obstructed by the tenant.

Despite Miers’ claims, Watson noted there was no evidence presented to support her assertions about the tenant’s behavior towards contractors. The tribunal found Miers had not lodged the $1,800 bond with Tenancy Services, further complicating her standing in the case. This is not the first instance of Miers facing scrutiny by the Tenancy Tribunal; she previously was ordered to pay over $30,000 in another case involving unauthorized renovations and subletting.

The adjudicator highlighted the importance of ensuring the tenant and his child had access to safe and habitable living conditions. “Because there is a child involved, I am very hesitant to bring the tenancy to an end,” Watson remarked, opting instead to issue work orders for the necessary repairs at the property.

Miers expressed disappointment with the tribunal’s ruling, asserting that her adherence to legal processes was not reflected in the outcome. She maintained that the tribunal’s decision leaves tenants vulnerable and places her at a financial loss, stating, “the outcome leaves other tenants still exposed and me carrying significant losses.”

This case underscores ongoing issues within the rental market, particularly regarding the responsibilities of landlords to provide safe and habitable environments for their tenants.