Porirua social housing provider criticised for mould, rotting floors

The Titahi Bay property must not be re-let until it is brought up to an acceptable standard. Image / Google Maps

A social housing provider that ordered a tenant to move out after she complained about mould, rotting floors and holes in the walls has been ordered to pay her compensation.

The tenant had moved into the Porirua house in January this year, having relocated from Auckland for the safety of foster children in her care.

"She had been in social housing in Auckland and approached the landlord, which holds itself out as, among other things, a provider of social housing," said tribunal adjudicator Alan Henwood in his decision.

She accepted the rental sight unseen, but was "shocked" by the condition of the property when she moved in, and contacted the property manager about it.

"An inspection was carried out on January 13and a copy of the inspection report was provided in evidence. It indicates holes in walls, mould and damp, peeling wallpaper, rotting floors, stained carpets, lifting lino and missing door handles and latches. Plus the stove did not work."

The property was managed by the Porirua Whanau Centre Trust, which owns 13 properties and manages four more.

It states on its website it "values the importance of whanau accessing warm, safe and secure housing".

"We have made considerable investments to ensure all our houses exceed the insulation requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986."

Henwood said the report detailing the issues with the property was "something of a surprise" given the standard expected of a social housing provider was no less and sometimes higher than what was expected of a private landlord.

Despite the issues identified, nothing was done to fix them. The tenant then received a notice of termination in her letter box, giving her 42 days to vacate the property.

The notice stated the owner of the property was going to move in.

"The applicant has not vacated and stated in evidence that neither the owner nor any member of his family have attempted to move in. Her view is that the notice was simply a ploy to avoid having to remediate the property."

Due to issues around the way the notice was served, Henwood said it was not enforceable.

"The tenant has indicated that she would leave if she could. However she is of limited means and is unable to find suitable alternative affordable housing. She is on a Kainga Ora waiting list."

The tribunal ordered the landlord not to let or re-let the house until it was brought up to an acceptable standard, and directed a copy of the decision be sent to the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing.

"The credibility of the system of provision of social housing is brought into question by cases such as this," he said.

He said the fact the Trust intended to "provide housing to someone in relatively desperate need" worked in its favour, but that the situation had negatively affected the health of the tenant and her foster children.

Conscious that a social housing provider was likely to have "limited means", Henwood set the compensation payment at a "relatively low $1000".

Inital comment provided by the Porirua Whanau Centre Trust stated there was a stay of proceedings on the case, and that there would be a rehearing on the matter.