��һ�ǿ�����

Broken appliances. A cracked hob. Nails sticking out of the deck with boards that flipped up when you stood on them. A faulty fireplace that sent smoke billowing through the house. And landlords who allegedly spied on them through security cameras.

A UK family got more than they bargained for when they came to New Zealand for a new adventure and discovered the rental they’d signed up for, on a 12-month fixed term lease, was what they describe as “unliveable”.

Simon Usher and his wife Lynne have now been awarded just over $18,000 after taking their landlord and two property managers to the Tenancy Tribunal.

The bulk of the breaches came under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act, which requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

However, the landlord and property managers all disagree with the findings.

The landlord, Richard Pretious, has now applied for a rehearing of the case, and a stay of proceedings has been put in place, until a discussion about whether there are grounds to rehear the case takes place in November. An earlier application sought by one of the property managers for a rehearing was dismissed.

‘Numerous unlawful acts’

Before moving to New Zealand with his wife and three children, Simon Usher was sent videos and photos of the Glendowie house by a property manager who can’t be named for legal reasons. He told the tribunal these hadn’t shown the true condition of the property.

After the tribunal’s decision was released, Usher told ��һ�ǿ����� he believed the house was “unliveable” and they’d ended up going to visit friends in Australia for a week because it was unpleasant and, in his opinion, “unsafe” to be in.

He told the tribunal they discovered the hob was cracked, with shards of glass on the surface and water leaking into the electrics, making it unusable.

The microwave was broken, and the water filter on the fridge didn’t work, nor did the dryer. The slats and frame for a bed in a child’s bedroom were broken.

There were numerous issues with the property, including beds that were broken and unusable and had stained mattresses.

The sofa, the shower door, vacuum cleaner, fans, back gate, blinds and kettle were all broken, and the deck had rotten and loose boards, with nails sticking up.

As part of the Healthy Homes guidelines, a heating source is required. The house had a fireplace, but the tenants found when it was lit smoke was sent through the house, setting off the smoke alarms.

The dishwasher had mould throughout it and broken glass in the bottom.

The decision said more than a month after the tenants started paying rent on April 1, the landlord and property manager were told about the repairs and maintenance, but did nothing to address them.

The Ushers inspected the property on May 6 and moved in on May 12, more than a month after the tenancy began.

“The tenants’ photographs, and video from 6 May 2024, show that most of the things that are recorded as having been addressed were not addressed before the tenancy commenced on 1 April 2024, or by the time the tenants arrived ... on 6 May 2024,” the decision said.

Adjudicator Michelle Pollack said the landlord did not disprove the issues the tenants identified and the tenants suffered the loss of amenity of several facilities and chattels they were paying $1250 rent per week to avail themselves of.

The inside of a dishwasher at the property the Usher family were renting, found to have mould throughout it. The family have been awarded more than $18,000 in damages and compensation by the Tenancy Tribunal.

Where there had been repairs, the decision said it had taken weeks, including the hob which was reported as broken on May 6, when they inspected the property, but wasn’t repaired until May 21.

“During that period, the tenants had no way to cook food ... as the microwave and oven were also not working,” Pollack said.

“I find the landlord has committed numerous unlawful acts.”

For breaches related to the maintenance, and for issues related to non-compliance with Healthy Homes standards, the landlord was ordered to pay $16,571.43.

Six months’ rent in advance

The adjudicator found, based on text conversations, the Ushers were given the option of paying three to six months’ rent in advance to help them secure the tenancy.

The optional element of this was later removed, when the Ushers wanted the start date of their tenancy pushed out.

They received a message from the property manager which read:

“Hi Simon, owner says they can push out the commencement date if you’re still ok to pay the 6 months rent in advance on the 1st April? Or 3 months if that’s too hard then?”

The decision said the tenants should never have been required to pay three to six months’ rent in advance as a condition of securing a later tenancy start date. This was a breach, as only a bond can be required.

It also said that although the landlord did not expressly require the tenants to pay rent in advance, “there was a strong overt expectation conveyed in the landlord’s communications with the tenant that agreeing to this would secure the tenancy”.

It was only after the tenants agreed to pay six months in advance, that the tenancy was confirmed.

Speaking to ��һ�ǿ�����, Simon Usher said the request for six months upfront had seemed a bit unusual, but claims he was told it was because they were coming from abroad.

“We didn’t quite understand but we just going to go along with the laws of the country ... plus, we wanted to find a property in advance because, like I said, we’ve got two boys with autism spectrum disorder, so we wanted to make sure it was kind of, you know, a secure property.”

For the breaches of requiring more than two weeks’ rent in advance, and for requiring payment to secure the tenancy, beyond just a bond, the landlords were ordered to pay $1500.

Spying from Bali

The decision says the Ushers discovered the owners were watching them on Ring cameras – a type of security camera – that were being accessed remotely from Bali, where the owners live.

They could remotely connect to a router in the house to work from Bali, and the security system notified the owners when anyone was at the front door.

The owners said the Ushers could use their internet system, for a fee, and agreed they would leave the power and gas services connected in their names until May 31 so the tenants had a chance to make their own arrangements.

But that plan went awry when the Ushers raised concerns after a neighbour told them the owners had allegedly been spying on them.

Simon Usher told ��һ�ǿ����� they found out the landlord had been texting people on the street based on conversations they’d had on the doorstep.

“They were literally remotely listening to what we were doing and saying,” Usher said.

The decision said there was evidence “the landlord disabled their internet, gas, and electricity services” immediately and without warning after the tenants raised concerns about the owner watching them.

They had no power and gas for more than 24 hours and were without the internet for five days.

The adjudicator found this was unlawful and awarded an exemplary damage of $1800.

This incident constituted a further breach of the “privacy and quiet enjoyment” of the property.

“The owners knew they could watch and hear the tenants from the Ring camera but did not alert the tenants that the downside of them agreeing to share the internet services with the owners [was that] they were being left open to being watched and listened to when they were in certain parts of the property and that any visitors they had could be monitored and recorded by the owners,” the decision said.

“The tenants felt violated and harassed when they found out the owners had been watching and listening to them.”

The landlord was ordered to pay $1000 in damages – one third of the maximum that could have been awarded, given the tenants could only provide proof of one instance of spying.

Compo, damages and an appeal

The total damages and compensation amounted to $21,141.87, but because of rent arrears owed, the amount payable to the Ushers was $18,358.60. A stay of proceedings means those damages are now on hold.

There are three parties named as “respondents” on the decision: the first is a property manager, who acted as agent for the next respondent, landlord Richard Pretious, at the start of the tenancy. The property was then passed to the final respondent Lisa Taylor, at Taylor Property Management.

Taylor told ��һ�ǿ����� she’d had a long career as a property manager and had never been before the Tenancy Tribunal. She had become involved late in the tenancy, hadn’t been aware of the full situation, and hadn’t known what she was walking into.

After the decision was released, Taylor sought to have her name removed from the decision and applied for a rehearing, both of which were denied.

The first property manager had managed the property for “a short period”, and “many of the issues” dealt with in the decision happened after she had stepped away from the property. She disagreed with the findings and thought there were grounds for an appeal.

After being contacted by ��һ�ǿ�����, she applied to the tribunal for a non-publication order, which if granted will keep her identity and the name of her company from being able to be reported.

Pretious, who is believed to be overseas, could not be reached for comment.

While the decision was overwhelmingly in favour of the tenants, the landlord was awarded for the period where the tenants had left the property earlier than agreed and the new tenants hadn’t moved in.

The tenants were ordered to pay $1785.71 in rent arrears and a break lease fee of $997.56.

It would be up to the three landlord parties to address the issue of liability for the remedies awarded, based on what part of the tenancy they related to.

A ‘better life’

Simon Usher told ��һ�ǿ����� they’d come to New Zealand for a better life for their three children.

Simon Usher and his wife have been awarded just over $18,000 in a Tenancy Tribunal decision after their landlords failed tomaintain their rental property, spied on them through security cameras, and pressured them to pay six months' rent in advance.

“When we were coming over here, we touted it as like this dream. This is our dream place ... our dream people, our dream weather,” he said.

“We got this lifestyle put together and we thought everything would be fantastic, you know, and our new adventure.”

He and his wife had been together for 17 years and hadn’t had an easy time growing up in the UK. They wanted their kids to experience something better, but said from the moment they arrived it had been “warfare in court”.

“We spent a month trying to get out the property basically ... we were so stressed we ended up going to visit friends in Australia for a week, just because we couldn’t stay in the property anymore [due to its condition],” he said.

He said they were grateful to have found a new rental which was a “drastic” improvement on their last experience.

Warning from tenancy expert

Tenants Protection Association coordinator Angela Maynard said the best rule of thumb for people relocating from abroad, or from another city, is to wait until they’re on the ground to find a rental.

“Save a bit of extra money if you are able to, and put yourself into temporary accommodation,” Maynard said.

“When you get here, talk to people and look around and find your own place.”

She said there were ongoing efforts to lobby the Government for increased regulation and monitoring of property managers.

She also said those coming from abroad should get to know the tenancy laws when they arrive, and speak to their local Citizens Advice Bureau.