Tenants were aware of the property’s state
According to the recently-released tribunal decision, the tenants, whose names are also suppressed, moved into the property on January 9, 2025.
The landlord had offered the property, which had been vacant for two years, to the tenants, who were “desperate for a place to live”.
They had told him they were going to be homeless in 12 days.
Tribunal adjudicator Michelle Pollack said the landlord rented the property out of a “desire to give”.
“He let the tenants come to look at the premises with his prior tenant, so they knew how much repair and maintenance work needed to be done on it and could make a decision about whether the house would meet their and their family’s needs before deciding to agree to rent it.”
But the landlord was unaware of just how much needed to be done and how expensive it was going to be to get the home up to standard.
The rental price was set below the market rate because the property was not in “tip top shape”.
Before the tenants moved in, the landlord undertook interior painting and some remedial work.
He then began trying to get the home up to the Healthy Homes’ Standard by replacing the guttering and the roof. But work was stopped when the house was found to have structural faults.
The expected cost was around $197,000 with no allowance for contingencies, consent or planning.
The landlord was retired and he and his partner had no source of income other than the superannuation, and his only other asset was the house in which they reside, so he could not afford to fix the home.
The Tenancy Tribunal has issued a ruling on the matter after the tenants complained to the authority. Photo / 123RF
On March 22, the landlord contacted the tenants to see if they could mutually end the tenancy as he could not afford the repairs.
Unable to reach them, he applied to the tribunal to end the tenancy because of the severe hardship he would suffer.
A day later, he received an Insanitary Building Notice (IBN) from Auckland Council (AC) instructing him to carry out building works by March 26. The landlord did not know who notified the AC.
The reason for the IBN is that the weatherboard cladding system, which appeared sound from the outside, was compromised by dry rot and borer, including in the studs, bearers, joists and bottom plates. The chimney was also detaching from the wall fixing.
On April 17, 2025, AC issued a Restricted Entry IBN, meaning no one could enter the property unless undertaking inspection, repairs or demolition work. Hurricane fencing was also to be erected by April 28.
The building work under the Restricted Entry IBN needed to be finished by June 17 and failure to have the remedial work undertaken or the building demolished could result in a $300,000 fine and/or prosecution.
On April 18, the landlord decided to have the house demolished.
Landlord had legal grounds to terminate
Through his lawyer, the landlord issued the tenants a seven-day notice terminating the tenancy, notifying them of the intention to demolish the property, with the tenancy to end on April 27.
On April 24, the tenants emailed the landlord’s daughter saying they do not accept the termination notice but will abide by the requirements of the Restricted Entry IBN.
The tenants told the tribunal they left the property on April 27 and went into emergency housing.
They refused to bring the tenancy to an end because they wanted the landlord to fix the rental property and pay for their temporary accommodation.
According to the decision, they did not accept that he did not have the money to carry out the required remediation work in the timeframe AC had specified.
The tribunal found the landlord had legal grounds to terminate the tenancy.
“The tenants were happy to remain living in the premises and although they wanted numerous defects remedied, they were still able to live in the premises but did suffer considerable loss of amenity that they were paying to enjoy because of these numerous defects/repair and maintenance issues,” Pollak said.
The tenants said the landlord had failed to provide the rental premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, specifically claiming there was a rat infestation, the carpet was stained and dirty, the bathroom was mouldy, there was also mould and dirt throughout the house and garden waste.
But the tenants did not provide any evidence of this, so their claims were not upheld.
However, the tenants were awarded a rent rebate of $5512, which was 80% of what they paid while living in the property for 15 weeks.
The landlord was also ordered to pay $375 for failing to provide the tenants with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements and smoke alarm information, which was a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act.
“I am satisfied the evidence proves that neither party is to blame in this unfortunate situation,” Pollack said.
“The landlord made the decision to rent the tenants this home with the best of intentions.
“I am in no doubt that both parties to this tenancy relationship have suffered, albeit in very different ways, and entering this tenancy has cost both parties dearly.
“I feel for both parties as they both found themselves in challenging situations neither foresaw at the time they agreed to sign the tenancy agreement.”
Brianna McIlraith is a Queenstown-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the lower South Island. She has been a journalist since 2018 and has had a strong interest in business and financial journalism.