A tenant booted out of the farm shed where he was living has been awarded compensation for the way his exit was handled. Photo / Brian Scantlebury 123/RF
A tenant booted out of the farm shed where he was living has been awarded compensation for the way his exit was handled. Photo / Brian Scantlebury 123/RF
Living in a farm shed might not have been the home of his dreams, but it was the best on offer at the time.
Seven months after moving in, the tenant who was working all hours on a dairy farm was turfed out by the landlord, Philip More, who was unhappy with the unsociable hours.
The tenant has now been awarded $1300 compensation after the two fell out over the use of the partially-shared premises in Kaikōura.
The tenant, whose name was suppressed, sought the return of his bond in the claim related to “deficiencies in the premises”, plus exemplary damages for “retaliatory notice and harassment”.
The Tenancy Tribunal described the tenancy as a “very loose arrangement entered into knowingly by both parties”, but awarded compensation to the tenant primarily for the way in which the landlord ended it.
But tribunal adjudicator Michael Brennan stopped short of awarding damages - a different form of compensation under the Residential Tenancies Act, designed to punish and deter.
He didn’t accept it was a flatting arrangement, and neither did he see it as a typical landlord/tenant arrangement.
Landlord Philip More, who lived in a farm shed he once shared with a tenant, advised others to always get a contract in writing, and be careful about who to trust. Photo / 123RF
The tenant began living in the Kaikōura property in March last year.
The living quarters were constructed within a large shed on the rural property which featured basic facilities described as being adequate for the owner who completed the work and lived there after a relationship change, the tribunal said.
He then secured a new job in Christchurch around the same time the tenant, who until then had been living in service accommodation in the seaside town, sought new accommodation.
The tribunal said the tenancy “appeared opportunistic” as the landlord’s job opportunity in Christchurch created a vacancy.
“This region suffers, like many, from a shortage of accommodation options,” Brennan said in his decision.
The terms of the agreement were verbally agreed including a weekly rent of $170. A bond of $170 was taken but not lodged with the Bond Centre.
The tenant was aware of the configuration of the premises and happy to form the tenancy. Rent was negotiated with a slight reduction to accommodate the circumstances that More would be using areas of the premises.
The frequency of such use formed the main dispute between the parties, Brennan said.
Soon after he moved in the tenant started a new job at a neighbouring dairy farm.
The nature of such work involved antisocial hours which the tribunal said had an impact on the informal arrangements regarding the owner’s return to stay at the property during the tenancy.
The conflict led to a breakdown in the relationship between the parties.
The tribunal said More was frustrated by the continual denial of entry by the tenant, as well as other issues between the two, and ended the tenancy in October 2022.
The main issue the tenant raised was the claimed retaliatory notice and how the tenancy was ended by the landlord.
Brennan said it was apparent at the hearing that the landlord had minimal understanding of what he was entering into when the tenancy was formed.
He had not been a landlord before and did not consider himself one now.
“Later in the hearing he commented that he considered it more of a flatting arrangement, but he did not support this with any facts.”
The tribunal said the evidence showed various failures by the landlord, including unlawful acts. It chose not to address each but noted: “There were a number”.
Brennan did not consider the landlord sought to exploit the tenant, but he was “clearly benefiting from renting out unlawful premises” and the tenant was benefiting from having accommodation that he did not want to leave.
The tribunal determined it was appropriate that 25 per cent of the rent taken should be returned to the tenant by way of order, which equated to a refund of $1326.
“I consider the sum is appropriate compensation to the tenant for the claims made and the failures of the landlord.”
More told NZME he agreed he was never a landlord, but it had been a big learning curve. His advice to others was to never stand on simply a verbal agreement.
“Have something in writing and be careful who you trust,” he said.
