��һ�ǿ�����

• An Auckland landlord was ordered to pay $7778 to a couple complaining about mould, pests, and dangerous flatmates at their Epsom boarding house.
• The couple’s Tenancy Tribunal application said they were scared by a fellow tenant who continually showed them nude photos from the online escort profile of a female flatmate.
• Adjudicator Michelle Pollak found five intentional breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act by the landlord.

An Auckland man obsessed with a female flatmate who refused to sleep with him began scaring other tenants by showing them nude photos from the woman’s online escort profile.

That’s according to fellow tenants Clément Cardineau and Clara Mousnier, who brought a litany of complaints about their Epsom boarding house to the Tenancy Tribunal, saying it had mould, cockroaches, and dangerous flatmates.

Landlord Rent My Room Limited, trading as Room Renter, was ultimately ordered to pay the couple $7778 in damages, a recently published decision says.

Cardineau and Mousnier said they sometimes shared the boarding house with up to nine other tenants, including the man on a sexual vendetta.

“The tenant from room five wanted to have sex with the tenant from room one, and he became angry when he found out that she was an escort and would not have sex with him,” the couple, who rented room three, said.

“He got mad and showed her profile and nudes to the whole house and scared everyone, saying her clients would park in front of our windows and use our shower.”

Even when asked to stop, he continued showing the nude pictures.

This had created a “horrible tense atmosphere”, the couple told tribunal adjudicator Michelle Pollak.

However, the landlord told the tribunal hearing it had acted promptly, upon hearing of the man’s behaviour and use of the boarding house by the woman as a “base for prostitution”, to evict both tenants.

A man in an Epsom boarding house found out his female flatmate was an escort and then became angry when he found out she wouldn't sleep with him. Photo / 123rf

In considering the evidence, Pollak agreed with the landlord, saying it appeared Room Renter had evicted the problem tenants in a timely manner.

However, in the case of another tenant also considered “dangerous”, Pollak sided with Cardineau and Mousnier.

The couple complained that the man, who moved into room four, regularly got into a “drugged state” after using cannabis and other substances.

His behaviour then ranged from aggressively smashing and stealing other tenant’s belongings and food to standing still staring at the walls.

On one occasion, he took a fellow tenant’s table outside and smashed it up for no reason.

On another night, his aggression and harassment became so bad his flatmates were scared to leave their rooms, Cardineau and Mousnier said.

Have you had similar problems? Email us
The landlord told the tribunal it had acted in accordance with the law.

Room Renter said it gave the man two warnings in five days during late September and October last year before evicting him shortly after when police were called to the house because of his unprovoked table smashing.

However, Pollak sided with Cardineau and Mousnier.

She awarded $1500 exemplary damages, saying their quiet enjoyment of the tenancy had been breached because the landlord should have evicted the dangerous tenant immediately after the first complaint.

Cardineau and Mousnier also made a succession of other complaints about the home.

They were mostly related to failures to maintain the property, such as issues with pests, the oven, mould, trees blocking the home’s access and a fire escape, a leaking hot water cylinder, and a cracked ceiling.

Room Renter disputed the claims, saying some delays were caused by having to wait for the property owner to approve repair work or because it was trying to recover money from tenants for damage.

The landlord said it was not the property owner and instead rented it from the owner so it could sub-let rooms in a boarding house structure.

Room Renter said on some occasions it had paid for repairs itself, but repairs were mostly handled by the owner’s contractors.

In assessing the case, Pollak sided with the landlord on some matters.

However, she also found the landlord had intentionally breached the Residential Tenancies Act five times.

“These breaches were prolonged and resulted in the tenants living in cold, damp and mouldy conditions without adequate access to the premise and emergency exits,” she said.

“I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord ... showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenants’ many, significant and ongoing plights.”

She awarded $3600 in exemplary damages for the breaches along with the $1500 exemplary damages for the dangerous tenant, while the rest of the $7778 paid to Cardineau and Mousnier was mostly made up of rent rebates.

Room Renter has been approached for comment.

Ben Leahy is an Auckland-based senior journalist. He has worked as a journalist for more than a decade in India, Australia and New Zealand.