The Tenancy Tribunal ordered a pensioner's tenancy to be terminated after the woman stopped paying her rent. Photo / Chris Steel
An elderly council housing tenant who was awarded thousands of dollars in compensation after spending almost two years in a “freezing” cold and damp unit has now been evicted for not paying her rent.
In May, the Taupō District Council paid the woman $4127 in compensation after the Tenancy Tribunal ruled the unit breached the Healthy Homes Standards.
The award arose from an April decision in which tribunal adjudicator Jeanette Maher took into account the tenant’s vulnerability, the period over which the breaches occurred, and that the pension flat still didn’t comply with draughts and heating standards.
“The initial Healthy Homes report was available to the Taupō District Council in November 2021 and was not acted upon or disclosed to the tenant,” it said.
After that decision, the council undertook the necessary repairs and paid the fine, but the woman, whose name is suppressed, stopped paying her rent.
In August, the council sought to evict the woman for rent arrears, but the woman claimed she wasn’t liable to pay rent because of the landlord’s breaches.
Those breaches included the level of rent, which the woman had unsuccessfully argued earlier was too high.
When the woman signed the tenancy agreement, the council incorrectly recorded the rent at $125 a fortnight, half of what it should have been.
She maintained the council was bound to honour the amount in the agreement.
When the council discovered its mistake, it proposed a rent increase to $170 and later imposed it.
The woman argued the new amount exceeded market rent.
She also argued the increase breached social housing income-related rent rules and put many in her complex into significant financial hardship.
But Maher ruled against her on both points, saying the error was a genuine one.
The adjudicator also found that if the tenant had insisted the council be held to the written agreement, it, in turn, could have issued a 90-day notice to terminate the contract.
“Had that option been provided to her, I am satisfied that she would have signed the amended agreement.”
The adjudicator found the council’s pensioner flats were heavily subsidised by ratepayers and the council’s rents weren’t income-related, but were determined by councillors, who took into account the costs of running the units.
At the latest hearing, the woman continued to argue she should be paying $125 a week, with the balance being deducted from what she now owed.
She maintained the rent increase was unlawful and the new weekly rent rate exceeded market rent.
Still, Maher wasn’t buying it, pointing out that because no appeal had been lodged, she couldn’t consider the issues that were previously determined because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to do so.
She also dismissed the woman’s claim the council had failed to notify her properly when it appointed a new property manager.
The new property manager had hand-delivered letters to tenants and followed up with a face-to-face meeting.
When the woman failed to attend that meeting, the new property manager visited her unit, introducing herself and providing her with another letter of explanation.
But when the rent went into the new property manager’s account, the woman complained to the bank and had the payment reversed in August. She hasn’t paid rent since.
The woman also complained the council hadn’t complied with the draught-stopping, ventilation and insulation requirements in the Healthy Homes Standards.
In June, the council issued a final report confirming it had undertaken the work and the unit complied with the standards.
It provided invoices for the work that was done and the correspondence on file showed a willingness on behalf of the council to investigate any further issues, Maher said.
She said while the tenant disputed aspects of the report, she’d provided no evidence to support her claims and refused to allow an inspection.
She also rejected a request for compensation because the colour of the blinds installed didn’t match or because there was asbestos in the flat.
“The landlord said it had no knowledge that there was asbestos at the flat,” she said.
Maher found the tenant’s persistent failure to pay her rent was the basis for terminating the tenancy, and she ordered the woman to pay the council $4111.
In a statement, the council said it has a long waitlist for its Housing for the Elderly units and a limited stock, which, although dated, complied with Healthy Homes Standards.
The units were rented at below market rates and were subsidised by general ratepayers. Many tenants were unable to afford market rents.
It said applying to the tribunal for an order to terminate the tenancy was a last resort measure when all others had failed.
It confirmed the woman no longer lived at the unit.
Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter, based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently she was working as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice.