��һ�ǿ�����

A father desperate for accommodation moved into a storage unit in an industrial zone with his 5-year-old daughter and their pet, paying $430 a week for space with no fresh air or natural light.

The illegal tenancy lasted only a matter of months and ended “very badly”, leaving the girl “emotional” and the man extremely stressed.

According to a Tenancy Tribunal decision, the landlord, Victor Davis, had told the man to leave and then, a week before Christmas, locked them out of the unit and seized some of their belongings.

Now, about six months on, the man said he was still trying to rebuild his life.

He told the tribunal he could not believe how Davis treated him and described what happened as being “kicked out of his home” and that the effect was “gut-wrenching”.

The tribunal found the man had entered into the tenancy agreement in good faith and that Davis was likely motivated by money and had profited unfairly.

Davis claimed he rented the man a storage unit and was not aware he had decided to live there. However, the tribunal found evidence, including that they signed a standard residential tenancy agreement, proved he had most likely rented the industrial unit as a home, and knew that he was not allowed to.

A man has taken his former landlord, Victor Davis, to the Tenancy Tribunal after an illegal tenancy took place in a storage unit in Ōtaki.

“The living situation was so unusual that the landlord must have known he should check with the Council before advertising and offering to rent to the tenant,” the tribunal’s decision said.

The man, who has name suppression, turned to the tribunal in the days after his tenancy ended last year, claiming compensation and exemplary damages because of how it ended.

Davis counterclaimed for rent arrears and compensation for moving the man’s belongings.

Desperate for accommodation

In the recently released decision, the tribunal said the man urgently needed accommodation when he answered an advertisement relating to the unit.

The storage unit was located in an industrial area of Ōtaki, on the Kāpiti Coast, and the only entrance was through a large garage roller door.

There was an office space at the back of the unit where the man and his daughter lived. It had no external windows and the only way they could get fresh air and daylight was to have the garage door open, which meant the unit would fill up with dust and debris.

The Tenancy Tribunal largely ruled in favour of the tenant. Photo / Stock Image 123rf

The man came from a three-bedroom house and utilised the storage part of the unit for storage.

In the office space, there was a bathroom with “some sort of extractor fan that the tenant had no control over”, and a kitchenette with a fridge, a sink and some hobs.

They were allowed to have their pet live with them, though the decision does not state what animal the pet was.

The tenancy lasted around 17 weeks, during which he paid $6020.

Told to leave and locked out

It started falling apart around October last year, when the man gave Davis a “heads up” that he would be moving out because he did not feel safe living in the unit.

The man said that on December 4, there was an argument and Davis told him he had two days to leave.

However, Davis told the tribunal he could not recall telling the man to move out, but he was concerned about rent arrears, drugs, and safety.

A few days after the argument, there was allegedly no power or water in the unit.

The man said he took that as a sign that Davis was forcing him out, so he stopped paying rent. Davis said he did not turn the power and water off.

The man bought a campervan to live in and began organising the move of his belongings.

But on December 18, Davis screwed the garage door shut, preventing access to the unit.

He said he locked the man out because he and others threatened to hurt him and damage the unit.

The police were called and officers helped the man to get access. He collected his pet and some essentials.

It was negotiated that the man could return the following day to collect the rest of his things.

He told the tribunal that he had about an hour and a half to enter and chose the most useful belongings to put into his car and trailer.

The rest was left behind. He claimed Davis then put some of his belongings outside, where they were ruined, and refused to return what was left inside.

He claimed he lost between $10,000 and $15,000 of belongings, including appliances, computer gear, some furniture, clothing, toys, and sports gear.

Davis told the tribunal that the man left behind a mess and removed everything of value.

What was left outside and in the storage unit was rubbish, Davis claimed. He has not allowed the man access since.

The tenancy was not lawful

Following the hearing, which both parties attended, the tribunal found largely in favour of the man.

It found the storage unit was not lawfully consented for residential use and therefore the tenancy was unlawful.

The decision stated that in the event of such a finding, the tribunal can order the landlord to repay the tenant all the rent they paid, or a lesser amount in special circumstances.

Davis was ordered to refund $3500 of the man’s rent.

That amount weighed the “detriment to the tenant in terms of discomfort and amenity”, and “the need to discourage landlords from renting premises that cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes”.

When considering whether Davis ended the tenancy without grounds, the tribunal was more persuaded by the man’s evidence.

It ruled it was ended by Davis telling the man to leave, then denying him access, which was unlawful and resulted in an order for Davis to pay exemplary damages of $3250.

The tribunal also found that Davis seized the man’s belongings, leading to a damages order of $1000.

The man failed to prove the claim for the list of belongings he said were lost, with the tribunal finding that, logically, the man would take the most valuable items first when given a limited time to pack, and there was no way of proving what was left behind.

However, Davis was still ordered to pay $2000 in compensation for stress, inconvenience, and the likely loss of household items.

The tribunal dismissed the claim that Davis had interfered with the man’s services, relating to the power and water allegation, as well as claims Davis had entered the unit without consent or notice, and another of a breach of quiet enjoyment.

Davis’ counterclaims were also dismissed with the decision noting that when the tribunal finds unlawful premises, it can not order the tenant to pay rent arrears or compensation, unless there are special circumstances, which there were not.

He has been ordered to pay the man a total of $9777, which includes a filing fee.