The Tenancy Tribunal ordered a Waituhi landlord to pay his former tenant $3727. Photo / NZME
A former tenant of a Waituhi property has been awarded more than $3700 after the Tenancy Tribunal was told the landlord left multiple items at the property, and the home had insulation issues.
The tenant’s name was suppressed by tribunal adjudicator C Price.
The landlord was Norm Ngaira, acting as trustee for the Ngaira Whānau Trust.
The property is in Waituhi - 21 kilometres northwest of Gisborne.
After the hearing, Ngaira applied for a rehearing, but this was dismissed by the adjudicator.
The tenancy began on November 2, 2020, and ended on September 22, 2024, Price wrote in his decision dated March 17, 2025.
The tenant and her partner travelled from their home in Palmerston North for the hearing in Gisborne.
The landlord did not attend but had been served, so the hearing proceeded in his absence.
Initially, the application to the tribunal was made by the tenant and her partner, but he was confirmed as an occupier of the property, not a tenant.
“[The tenant’s partner] decided to leave the hearing so he could provide evidence as a witness later in the hearing,” Price said in his decision.
In dispute were matters of Healthy Homes Standards.
“The tenant said she asked the landlord about whether the property was properly insulated. The tenant said the property’s floors were cold, the windows were not double-glazed, one lounge window leaked in the rain, and the house was very cold in the colder weather,” Price wrote.
“The tenant said the landlord told her it was insulated but only sent her one photograph of the landlord in the house with what looked like hay, rather than any Pink Batts in the walls.
“The tenant did not provide a copy of the landlord’s photograph, nor copies of any communication with the landlord ... as such, I find that insufficient evidence has been provided,” Price wrote.
However, Price found Ngaira had not provided insulation details in the tenancy agreement and had committed an unlawful act.
He also committed an unlawful act in not giving the tenant a copy of the tenancy agreement until August 20, 2024. Her tenancy began on November 2, 2020.
The tenant also said her “quiet enjoyment” was breached when the landlord “just turned up” sometimes with his friends, although these incidents mainly involved her partner when he was there on his own.
“There was some evidence of altercations between the landlord and the tenant’s partner also, with the tenant saying her partner had been charged one time in relation to such an altercation.”
Price dismissed the claim due to insufficient evidence.
The tenant also claimed compensation of $15,286 for the landlord parking his caravan on the front lawn and a trailer on the back lawn for eight months.
She also complained that mattresses and blankets were left in a bedroom, and a lounge suite and a carpenter’s saw were left in the lounge.
Price agreed there was loss of amenity from the items left at the property.
He found in favour of several of the tenant’s claims and awarded compensation and refund of the bond, but Ngaira applied for a rehearing two days later.
“Norman Ngaira, as trustee for the Ngaira Whanau Trust, applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he was under extreme stress as his job was disestablished, he was assaulted by the tenant’s partner during the final inspection, and these factors impacted his time management.”
The application was considered by phone conference involving Ngaira, the tenant and the adjudicator.
“He clarified that the assault by the tenant’s partner towards him was on 21 September 2024, that he was told of his job being disestablished early in January 2025 and he confirmed the hearing date was 13 March 2025,” Price wrote.
Ngaira acknowledged he received the notice for the initial hearing on December 17, 2024, and that the hearing was set down for March 13, 2025.
“Mr Ngaira did not provide any evidence confirming his extreme stress and mental distress, such as a letter from his GP, or a counsellor ... that showed this would have impacted his ability to remember the hearing date.
Price wrote in a decision dated April 28, 2025, that Ngaira had failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Price ruled that the Bond Centre was to pay the tenant $1500 while Ngaira was to pay $3727, calculated as follows:
All other claims were dismissed.