It ended with the tenant having to buy water and a power generator after the landlord cut essential services to the home.
The landlord, who was left $1750 out of pocket in rent, has now been ordered to pay $1574 to the tenant, who has name suppression and left the property last month, after a squaring up of who owed whom.
The tenant had moved into the standalone home behind another on a shared driveway in October 2021.
The landlord held the power and water accounts and invoiced the tenants based on their usage, a recent Tenancy Tribunal decision detailed.
Problems began when the tenant placed a business sign on the fence at the front of the property.
The landlord said he was driving past the property and saw a sign outside and was upset as the tenant had done alterations in the past and had a caravan in the driveway.
He sent her a message and an argument started.
Rather than remove the sign, the tenant said she would move out, and take the lounge carpet she had replaced herself after the original was damaged in the Auckland floods in January 2023.
The landlord said if the tenant left with the carpet he would deduct the sum of a replacement carpet from the tenant’s bond.
But, as he had not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre as required, the tenant stopped paying rent.
He told the tribunal he had pulled the carpet up to dry and there was “never any conversation about the tenant replacing the carpet”.
After the tenant stopped paying rent, the landlord warned her he would cut off the power and water.
She went shopping and when she returned he had done so.
“Unsurprisingly, the tenant and her family found life without power and water very difficult,” the tribunal’s adjudicator Melissa Allan said.
The tenant pleaded with the landlord to turn it back on but was told he wouldn’t until she paid three weeks of rent owed.
The tenant replied that the bond would cover the rent.
She then had to buy water for drinking, cooking and to flush the toilet.
She also had to pay to use shower facilities at the local community pool, describing it as a difficult few days without electricity for cooking and charging phones.
She then bought a power generator to use for electricity.
The tribunal noted that the tenant reconnected the water after two days, and the landlord put the power back on after four days.
“Interfering with the supply of power and water, except where necessary, is a serious matter,” Allan said.
“The tenant was left in very difficult circumstances, even if only for a matter of days. There are serious potential health consequences when power and water are disconnected as the tenant was unable to cook, wash and flush the toilet.”
The tenant filed a claim in May this year, alleging a breach of Healthy Homes standards.
The landlord responded with a claim seeking orders for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears of $1750 plus $444 for power and water owed, $4000 to replace the carpet and $1000 for damage to an outside wall.
Allan was satisfied that the records provided by the landlord accurately reflected the power and water used.
There was agreement over the amount of unpaid rent but the tribunal did not consider that the landlord was entitled to any compensation for the carpet.
“There has clearly been a breakdown in communication and the old carpet has been thrown away,” Allan said.
There was no evidence provided to back claims by the landlord about damage that had occurred during the tenancy.
Allan found the tenant was entitled to compensation for lack of amenities as the home should have met the standards within 90 days of the tenancy starting but did not.
The landlord also accepted that he should not have disconnected the tenant’s power and water and it was clear at the hearing that he regretted doing so, Allan said.
Under the circumstances, he had acted unlawfully and therefore damages were warranted.
The total award of $2194 to the landlord in rent owed, plus the $444 for power and water was offset by just over $2000 owed to the tenant in compensation and damages, plus bond of $1400 and a small net award, to arrive at the final figure of $1574 owed to the tenant.
Allan said that while each party had been successful to a degree, she considered the tenant to be the substantially successful party.
By Tracy Neal