Tenant Wins $3,400 Compensation for Unhygienic Rental

A tenant in Timaru, New Zealand, was awarded $3,400 in compensation after a tribunal deemed his rental property “completely unhygienic.” The tenant, who had stopped paying rent for nearly three months, took his case to the Tenancy Tribunal due to severe living conditions that he claimed had negatively impacted his and his son’s health.

The tenant had resided at the property since August 2024, paying $450 per week. After facing persistent issues, he decided to conduct his own Healthy Homes inspection, which revealed alarming findings, including the absence of insulation, black mould throughout the home, and significant water damage. The inspector’s report indicated that the property failed to meet Healthy Homes standards, with a toilet that was improperly secured and emitting a sewage smell.

Tribunal Findings and Compensation Award

Tribunal adjudicator Deidre Watson highlighted in her ruling that the living conditions were unacceptable for any tenant, especially for a child. She noted, “There is black mould everywhere. These premises are not suitable for a child to be living in.” The tribunal ultimately awarded the tenant a total of $7,800 in compensation, which was offset against Miers’ claim for outstanding rent amounting to $4,300, resulting in the final compensation sum of $3,400.

Miers, the landlord, had previously been ordered to pay over $30,000 in another case involving a rental property in Auckland. In that instance, she had made unauthorized renovations and sublet the property without the owner’s knowledge. The tribunal expressed concerns that Miers’ approach to her legal obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act was casual, suggesting that other tenants might also be facing similar issues.

Landlord’s Response and Tenant’s Background

In response to the tribunal’s findings, Miers claimed she had acted out of compassion when renting to the tenant, who she stated had urgent housing needs. She expressed that she felt obstructed in her attempts to address maintenance concerns due to alleged hostility from the tenant. “I have made repeated efforts to address the maintenance concerns by arranging qualified contractors to attend,” Miers stated.

Despite her claims, the tribunal found no evidence to support her assertions. Watson noted that it was illogical for a tenant to obstruct someone sent to repair the property. The tenant, acknowledging his past criminal record, emphasized that everyone deserves a safe home, regardless of their history. He described the living conditions as “inhumane,” asserting that he and his son deserved a better environment.

The case illustrates broader issues within the rental market, particularly regarding the treatment of vulnerable tenants. It underscores the importance of compliance with housing standards to ensure safety and well-being for all residents. The tribunal’s ruling not only provides compensation for the tenant but also serves as a reminder for landlords about their legal responsibilities.