A tenant taking an afternoon snooze on the couch was woken by his landlord tugging at his toe. The Tenancy Tribunal found the landlord breached his and other tenants' privacy several times, including during renovations to make the property compliant with Healthy Homes Standards. Photo / 123RF
A tenant taking an afternoon snooze on the couch was woken by his landlord tugging at his toe. The Tenancy Tribunal found the landlord breached his and other tenants' privacy several times, including during renovations to make the property compliant with Healthy Homes Standards. Photo / 123RF
Tenants who endured major disruptions and intrusions into their home during renovations to make it compliant with healthy homes standards were woken on one occasion by the landlord knocking on their bedroom window.
“Omg trying to sleep and the landlady came in,” the tenant said in a text message.
Anothertenant was once woken by the landlord “tugging at his toe” after he fell asleep in the lounge late one afternoon.
On another occasion, they were disturbed by a builder using a power tool to access a downstairs bedroom of the Auckland home, and claimed to have been dismissed by the tradesman who “laughed at them” and carried on.
Now, Barfoot & Thompson, as agent for landlord Nancy Fong-Anae, has been ordered to pay the unnamed tenants $5827 in damages and compensation.
A tenant taking an afternoon snooze on the couch was woken by his landlord tugging at his toe. The Tenancy Tribunal found the landlord had breached his and other tenants' privacy several times. Photo / 123RF
The Tenancy Tribunal found that Fong-Anae breached rules around the tenants’ loss of use and quiet enjoyment of the premises, and that she had entered them unlawfully.
Tribunal adjudicator Joon Yi also found that Fong-Anae’s failure to have the premises compliant with healthy homes standards was “intentional”, and as a consequence, the tenants had been living in a place that was non-compliant and then had to endure construction disruptions.
“There is strong public interest in denouncing such conduct,” Yi said in a recently released decision.
Claims over the bond not being lodged and retaliatory termination of the tenancy were dismissed.
Renovations begin
The three-bedroom, old-style Grey Lynn townhouse was in a block of flats.
One of the bedrooms was on a lower level, with French doors opening on to the street. There was a small foyer and laundry under the stairs, and the remainder of the living space was upstairs.
Yi said that initially, there were no issues with the premises, but problems began when the tenants were first notified of planned renovations.
The tenancy began in November 2023 when two people took on the tenancy, and a third person moved in in January 2024.
They were then told further work was needed, including exterior painting and window assessments for repairs, which continued for more than three months.
The first tenant moved out in June, and the tenant who had moved in months earlier was formally added to the tenancy agreement.
A week later, the second tenant left, followed by the third in August 2024, thereby ending the tenancy.
Yi said safety concerns were raised regarding the scaffolding, but the main issue for the tenants was that builders “frequently left tools and debris inside the property”, including sawdust on clean laundry and power tools on furniture and bedding.
They complained that scaffolding was repeatedly erected and removed without notice, causing significant noise and inconvenience, and that builders also accessed the property through unsecured windows while the tenants were away.
Tools and tarpaulins were left in the hallway for several days; power tools were used without drop sheets; the tenants’ parking areas were blocked, and a cherry picker was used to access the roof without prior notice.
Work sometimes began at 6pm and continued until 8pm, including weekends.
Landlord disputes claims but tenants provide proof
The landlord disputed the early and late hours of the work but Yi accepted the tenants’ evidence, because the landlord was not physically present during much of the period.
The tenants provided photos and message threads to substantiate the difficulties they experienced during this period, during which the landlord offered a bottle of wine and arranged for cleaners on one occasion, Yi said.
There was no offer of rent reduction or compensation, he said.
Yi accepted that necessary maintenance was being carried out, but he was satisfied that the extent and nature of the work resulted in a loss of use of the premises and significantly interfered with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment, but that it was neither intentional nor harassment.
For this breach, he ordered compensation of $2800, calculated at $200 per week over 14 weeks, but did not award the extra sought in damages.
Yi outlined the instances that constituted unlawful entry, including the landlord arriving without consent or prior notice.
Builders frequently entered the premises when tenants were not home. On one occasion, the downstairs bedroom door was left wide open to the street, with the tenant’s daughter’s laptop left exposed on the bed.
The landlord disputed most of the unlawful entry claims but admitted entering the upstairs area to “drop off a bottle of wine” while the tenants were not home.
The tenants disputed her claim that the house was unlocked and that she knocked before calling out multiple times.
The tenants’ evidence was accepted, and the landlord was ordered to pay the tenants $1500 in exemplary damages.
A further $1500 in damages was ordered for the landlord’s failure to comply with the healthy homes standards.
NZME has sought comment from the landlord and her agent.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
