While she cross-appealed, she was largely unsuccessful, with the District Court supporting most of the conclusions of the tribunal regarding her conduct.
She was successful in two aspects, though.
Judge Kate Davenport removed a penalty for Cai having “deliberately misled” the tribunal regarding the dates on a Healthy Homes report.
She also reduced the amount of exemplary damages that Cai had to pay regarding her failure to maintain the property, deciding that, while her conduct was “certainly bad”, it was “unlikely to be the worst possible”.
How the tenancy dispute spiralled
The Tenancy Tribunal heard the dispute over two days, about six months apart, and released its decision, which was the subject of the appeal.
The tenant, who was given name suppression by the tribunal, was awarded more than $15,000 in compensation, with the tribunal ruling largely in his favour.
But the tenant’s appeal argued he was entitled to further rent abatement because of the ongoing issues with leaks at the property.
He believed the tribunal’s decision “failed to acknowledge the significant impact of the property’s condition on his daily life and wellbeing”, as it hadn’t accepted that Cai agreed to a 50% rent reduction because of the leaks.
The case was heard first at the Tenancy Tribunal and then by the District Court.
Cai cross-appealed, arguing that the tribunal did not properly consider all the facts as to why she wasn’t present at the second part of the hearing.
She attended the first part in July 2023, but not the second part in January 2024.
She had asked for an adjournment some time before the hearing, but it was not granted. She was given leave to get legal counsel to represent her, but she did not, and she did not turn up to the hearing, nor answer her phone.
She told the District Court she should have been given an adjournment because she had “ongoing lethargy and brain fog” due to cancer treatment.
Judge Davenport disagreed.
She had not been granted an adjournment because the reasons she gave did not relate to her cancer treatment, but rather that the hearing was in the school holidays.
“Ms Cai instructed counsel to appear at the next two hearings before the tribunal, and there seems to be no reason why she could not have done it for the January 2024 hearing.”
Another of Cai’s appeal points was that the tribunal’s decision to award the tenant $15,722.20 in compensation was “excessive and incorrect”.
Ongoing leaks and water damage
The tenancy in Botany Downs, Auckland, began in November 2021, with the tenant renting the three-bedroom property for $750 a week. The rent increased to $800 in July 2023.
But the property was plagued with leaks, which began when an electrician damaged a water pipe while installing a bathroom fan, causing “extensive flooding”.
There were further leaks, including during heavy rain, with water coming down the walls of the room used by the tenant’s young child, and a hot water cupboard pipe leak that went through the tenant’s daughter’s bedding.
The tenant handled discussions with the insurance company, but Cai claimed he was asking for things to be done “in excess of what was needed”.
Angela Cai was ordered to pay damages and compensation after the Tenancy Tribunal found she failed to get repairs done at a rental property and shouted at her tenant.
But in her decision, the judge said there was “no evidence of this” and noted that assessors generally assessed only work that needed to be done, not what the tenant wanted.
Regarding the leaks, Cai told the judge the “house is good” and “it is normal for water to come in, in New Zealand houses, when there was a big heavy rain when a house has concrete tiles”.
Insurance payout, but no repairs
In April 2022, insurers instructed work to begin on the initial leaks, but in May, the day before further remediation work was due to start, Cai took an insurance payout, opting to do the work herself.
The judge found she didn’t spend “anywhere near” the $9117 that she received. The fixes were mostly to power points and light fittings.
She later paid $1035 for repairs to the roof, a leak in the sliding door, and repairs to gutters and barge boards.
Cai claimed the tenant had made access for the repairs “very hard”.
The decision said Cai did not accept the tenant’s word that leaks continued, and “treated every complaint with suspicion”.
“It is my view that Ms Cai was not prepared to spend the money on a house that she was intending to demolish and did demolish in 2024,” the judge said.
“This meant she was very reluctant to address problems caused by the internal gutter, fixing water damage, and repairing insulation.”
In May, Cai also realised the tenant had been paying only half the rent, and from there the issues continued to escalate.
The judge found Cai had agreed the tenant could pay four weeks at 50% rent if she could access the property to do repairs, but Cai disputed that.
Judge Kate Davenport KC heard the District Court case. Photo / NZME
The judge said, “Cai appeared to reach a decision that she would not agree to any repairs unless she got access to the house and inspected it herself. This caused friction.”
By May 2023, a “very bad incident” happened where Cai turned up unannounced, and the tenant wouldn’t let her in.
CCTV captured the audio of the incident, in which she could be heard yelling at the tenant and his child.
Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator Toni Prowse said in the earlier tribunal decision that the footage was “distressing”, particularly as the 2-year-old became increasingly upset.
“In over five years in the tribunal, it is one of the most shocking and disturbing pieces of evidence that I have seen or heard.”
Judge Davenport agreed it was “indeed disturbing”.
Cai told the court that, after the tenant started paying reduced rent and was in discussions with the insurance company, she lost faith in him.
The result of the District Court appeal
“My conclusion at the end of the evidence was that this made out the factual findings of the Tenancy Tribunal that Ms Cai was not a good landlord,” Judge Davenport said.
She noted that one of Cai’s property managers quit when Cai proposed increasing the tenant’s rent to $1000 a week or giving him notice.
The property manager said she didn’t want to work for a landlord who refused to abide by the Residential Tenancies Act.
The judge noted that Cai had made the tenant pay for damage she claimed his dog caused to the front door, only to demolish the house when he moved out.
“This is her right, and I mention it only to demonstrate her hostility,” the judge said.
She found there was a period when the tenant couldn’t use part of the house.
His young daughter had to sleep in the same room as him because “of the water running down the walls of her room”.
While she agreed with the tribunal that a 50% rent adjustment between January and May 2022 was reasonable, she determined that a further 25% rent abatement should apply from May 2022 to May 2023, not just the 12.5% applied by the tribunal.
This was to reflect the loss of amenity of the leaking bedroom.
However, she did not find that Cai was liable for damage to the tenant’s laptop, which happened when the electrician caused a leak.
Successful appeal points for landlord
The judge dismissed most of Cai’s appeal points, including that she made efforts to do repair work but that the delays were out of her control, and that she never agreed to any rent reduction.
She also largely agreed with the amount of compensation ordered by the tribunal.
But there were two aspects in which the judge ruled in Cai’s favour.
The first was in respect of the amount of exemplary damages related to her “failure to maintain” conduct.
The judge said that, while it was bad, it was “unlikely to be the worst possible”, so reduced the penalty from $5000 to $4000.
The other aspect was the findings of the tribunal related to the Healthy Homes report.
The tribunal decided Cai had “deliberately misled” them and falsified the report, because the dates on it were wrong.
However, the judge said that, while Cai should have checked the accuracy of the date, it would be “wrong to conclude she lied”.
The $900 in exemplary damages awarded by the tribunal for that were not upheld.
The judge noted that all the matters Cai raised had been before the tribunal, despite her non-attendance at the January hearing, save for the information about the Healthy Homes report.
The net result was that Cai was ordered to pay the tenant an additional $3162.50, plus costs of $1450.
Cai told NZME that “current tenancy law lets tenants who want to game the system find loopholes, which is not fair to the landlord, especially for the landlord whose English is their second language”.
“So government need [to] change their law to avoid more people moving overseas.”
The tenant told NZME he was glad the matter was over, as the hearings had been “pretty overwhelming”, and it had all taken up “a ton of my time”.
Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.