Landlords of a Christchurch house have been ordered to pay nearly $39,000 after the Tenancy Tribunal found poor conditions led to a child contracting rheumatic heart disease.
Anne and Roger Stocker were found to have breached the Residential Tenancies Act by failing to maintain their property appropriately.
The substandard conditions are believed to have significantly contributed to the child developing rheumatic heart disease which will have a continuous impact on their life.
The conditions affected the family in many ways including rooms being unusable due to their condition and possessions having to be destroyed due to mould and dampness.
Tenancy compliance and investigations national manager Steve Watson said the poor condition of the property shows Anne and Roger Stocker demonstrated deliberate wilful non-compliance as landlords.
"There is no justification for the poor behaviour of the landlords, which amounted to serious exploitation," he said.
"The landlords were aware of the condition of the property yet failed to take any steps to prevent harm to the occupants and showed no concern for the serious health implications on the young child living in the house."
The couple breached the Act by failing to complete general maintenance, not appointing an agent while not residing in New Zealand, not lodging bonds, and not complying with smoke alarm requirements and insulation statement requirements.
One of the adjudicators said "the tenant was entitled to a warm, dry and safe home; what the tenant got was anything but warm, dry and safe".
The house was inhabited by a Pasifika family over a number of years, with the landlords seemingly motivated by the fact the tenants had nowhere else to go and were vulnerable to exploitation.
"The most concerning thing about this case is the length of time the tenants had to live in a substandard property which severely impacted their health and that of their young child, as well as their daily lives," Watson said.
The tenancy was referred to the tribunal by the Christchurch City Council (CCC), which had conducted its own investigation. It had been initiated after a Canterbury DHB referral when a child living at the property had been admitted to hospital due to their health condition.
A Senior Environmental Health Officer from CCC concluded that the premises were so affected by mould and damp as to be uninhabitable, and that on a scale of 1 to 10 where 10 was the worst measure, the premises were at level 9 for inhabitability.
