The landlords of a South Island home have been ordered to pay their former tenant $5520.44 after they evicted her under the pretence of renovations, only to relist the property four days later.
The single mother of two, who has had her name suppressed, had a brain tumour that would soon be operated on when she was evicted from the Mosgiel home owned by Roshan John Mureekal and Anu Abraham and managed by Property Brokers South Limited.
The Tenancy Tribunal decision outlines that the tenancy was for a one-year fixed term which began in July 2020, which was then renewed in 2021 alongside a rent increase.
Before the second fixed term ended in July 2022, the mother told the property owners she would be unable to sign on for another full year as she had been diagnosed with a brain tumour that required brain surgery, however, she continued on a periodic tenancy.
The rent was increased again, though the tenant negotiated a smaller increase than proposed due to a lack of maintenance on the property, and the property manager Tania Simpson wrote to Mureekal to inform him of the changes to the contract and the tenant's circumstances.
In February 2023, Mureekal contacted Simpson to confirm a previous telephone conversation in which he had stated his intention to change rental agencies, also stating, "I would also like you to give the tenants a notice to leave as I am planning to do some renovation before the new agents taking over. I assume it is 90 days notice".
Simpson confirmed she would give notice to the tenant, and instructed Mureekal: "If the property is not being renovated as you have advised, and you have given the notice for the tenant to vacate due to these reasons it is illegal (just so you are aware). Renovations mean rebuilding, repairing and upgrading areas in the house and out".
Mureekal replied, "I am planning some work which will be hard with the tenants in place. I understand you have to give notice to tenants if the work affects their stay".
Simpson then served the tenant with a notice to vacate the property.
At the tenancy hearing, the tenant explained she had received the notice to vacate while still recovering from brain surgery on the tumour in November 2022.
She said her children had settled at the local school and she had built up a "support network of neighbours who could help her manage through the recovery period".
While she said the house was not well maintained, she had made it her home and was very reluctant to leave, however, she set about finding a new tenancy with the help of Simpson and Property Brokers South Limited.
She explained the stress of having to find a new home caused her sleepless nights and impacted her recovery, producing a letter from her Occupational Therapist demonstrating she was unable to fully engage in her rehabilitation programme.
She added she still suffers from extreme fatigue and has still not been able to fully unpack.
Once she had moved into her new home in April 2023, she was shocked to discover that only two working days after she had left, the property was advertised on TradeMe by Smart Homes Property Management Ltd for $130 a week more than she had been paying.
No renovations seemed to have taken place.
At the hearing, Simpson said she was just as surprised as the tenant to see the property immediately relisted and, as a result, her agency now requires evidence of intended renovations before giving notice in such circumstances.
Mureekal's defence was when he asked the tenant to be given notice he had been in two minds about whether to sell the property or not, but because the property market was not favourable when the tenant left, he decided to forge ahead with the renovations.
He said the renovations undertaken included replacing some carpet, painting, and outside work, though he was unable to provide details or receipts for the work.
The tribunal adjudicator M Allan found: "The notice given was unlawful. There was no evidence to support any alterations, repairs, refurbishment or repairs and certainly not to the extent required. If any renovations were done at all they were very minor and not of the extensive nature that would justify terminating a tenancy.
"The fact that the property was immediately re-listed with another agency and advertised only four days later, at an increased rental of $130, leads me to the inevitable conclusion that notice was given so that the landlord could increase the rent."
