The tenants were allowed two cats, four chickens and two pigs, and to use the paddocks.
They moved in with their cats and chickens and spoke with the landlord to clarify the arrangement for the pigs after the landlord said he would prefer they were kept within a fenced pigsty area in one part of the paddock.
In an email response on May 22 last year, the property agent said the landlord “unfortunately will have no other option but to proceed with shooting the pigs” if he received any complaints from neighbours about noise, property damage or other nuisance.
The tenants responded the next day, saying they would never have accepted the tenancy if they knew they had to follow those requirements.
Maplesden found the ability to keep the pigs safely at the property was an “essential” term of the tenancy for the tenants, and the landlord had breached this and failed to remedy it.
“There was no requirement in the written agreement that the animals be kept in the pigsty area. There was certainly no mention of any lethal consequences if the animals escaped.”
The landlord said there was no breach because the right to use the paddocks was later reinstated and the mention of shooting the pigs was retracted, but Maplesden disagreed.
“Some types of breach cannot be easily remedied. The response email does reinstate full use of the paddocks, but I find that it did not remove the effect of the earlier communicated threat to the pigs. Also, the retraction was late coming and used vague wording.
“It was understandable that the tenants no longer felt it was safe to bring the pigs to the property. Anyone would take a threat to the life of their pet as a serious matter.”
Power sharing situation ‘misrepresentation by omission’ – adjudicator
The tenants learned after moving in that the power account in their name included electricity used by the sleepout, which rented to someone else, sheds used by the landlord, a water pump for the property and a septic pump for the house and the sleepout.
They told the tribunal they felt “blindsided” by the situation.
“ ... We were not aware that we had a neighbour, much less that we had to take on responsibility for his power and that the power he uses would be added to our bill per month and then that we would have to discuss chasing him for money regarding payment for his power.”
A check meter measured the power used by the sleepout and water pump, but it was in a shed accessible only to the landlord and the sleepout tenant.
“The failure of the landlord/agent to disclose the power arrangement to the tenants is a misrepresentation by omission. The tenants were led to believe the power account was only for power supplied to the house they lived in. The tenancy agreement simply says they are liable for power, gas and water,” Maplesden said.
Managing director of property management at Ray White Gisborne and Wairoa, Hamish Harrison, said the company acknowledged the tribunal’s findings and accepted the outcome.
“The way this was handled at the time was disappointing for everyone involved.
“We have since reviewed our internal processes to ensure that, in more complex tenancy situations, expectations are clearly documented and communicated to reduce the likelihood of similar issues in future.
“We take our responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act seriously and remain committed to delivering a high standard of service to both tenants and landlords.”
Landlord Kurtis Michie was approached for comment.
The adjudicator ordered $1420.40 in compensation for loss from breach of contract, $500 in compensation for disappointment and inconvenience, $749.68 in compensation for power, and a filing fee reimbursement of $28, for a total of $2698.08 paid to the tenant.
