An Auckland landlord has been ordered to pay a family more than $30,000 after they were stuck living in an “unlawful” property with a sewage-soaked carpet, among several issues.
The family’s experience of living at the Albany Heights unit was detailed in a recently released Tenancy Tribunal decision — where adjudicator Michelle Pollak published its address “as a deterrent to the property owners continuing to rent out any of the three current unlawful dwellings”.
The family, comprised of two adults and two children (whose names are suppressed), moved into 310 Dairy Flat Highway in December 2023.
The unit, one of three on the property, was an old farmhouse divided into two households. A third was elsewhere on the property. Ashton NZ Property Ltd managed it on behalf of landlords Lingzhi Yuan and Leiyang Shen. They are appealing the decision.
‘Sewage-soaked carpet’
On April 14, the toilets blocked, overflowed, and flooded two areas beside the bathroom with raw sewage, soaking a carpet. The family contacted the property manager that day but received no reply.
“Out of desperation,” they called a plumber who cleared the blocked sewage line. But the toilet clogged and overflowed as soon as it was used again.
Nearly three weeks later, on May 4, the property manager finally replied, asking for photos of the damage. They asked the tenants to rip up the sewage-soaked carpet, throw it away, and clean the flooring.
“The tenants refused to rip up the sewage-soaked carpet as it was the raw sewage that posed a health risk,” Pollak said.
A second plumber, called by the property manager, also came that day and unblocked the toilet paper that had blocked up the line, but was unable to clear the grout, which continued to cause a blockage.
The plumber said the pipes were too small and needed to be replaced. Another plumber came on May 8 but couldn’t unblock the small pipes or remove the grout. They were also asked to empty the old septic tank to see if it fixed the issue.
The landlord did send other contractors to try find solutions, including a second emptying of the septic tank.
According to the report, the property manager did nothing about the now “unuseable” toilet, and the family arranged for a portaloo to be delivered. The landlord paid for the portaloo, which was used between May 6 and July 10, until the sewage issue was fixed.
On June 20, the tenants complained that their neighbour’s raw sewage was coming up through their toilet.
“The smell was so bad the tenants could not use the bathroom at all.”
The landlord sent a contractor to drain the sewage from the toilet and unblock a blocked pipe, but the toilet remained unuseable.
The issue persisted as the neighbour kept using their toilet.
The landlord later discovered “major” sewage pipe issues across all three properties and replaced them on July 9, installing a stormwater retention tank but no septic tank.
It was later found that sewage was being channelled into their and their neighbours’ backyards, which did not comply with council regulations.
The landlord never lifted the sewage-soaked carpet, instead sending someone to steam clean it. The tenants said they eventually stopped using the affected areas, as it had been soaked in raw sewage for seven weeks.
The property manager inspected the property several times since the cleaning but claimed she “cannot smell anything”.
“The tenants say that everyone else that enters the premise can smell the sewage smell immediately, and they are unsure how she cannot smell it,” Pollak said.
“The evidence supports a finding that it is more likely than not that sewage-soaked carpet, underlay and floorboard that have had a normal surface wet vac clean will not have removed all the faecal coliforms and raw sewage smell in the flooring materials.
The tenants lived with the sewage-soaked carpet from May 4, 2024, to January 10, this year — a total of 35 weeks and six days.
‘Thick black sediment’ found in water tank
The family also experienced several other water-related issues across the course of their tenancy.
In their bid to the tribunal, the tenants also claimed that water consistently ran out every one and a half weeks, leaving them without water for between 24 and 48 hours. The tenants told the tribunal they had used tank water before and were sparing with it.
They ran out of water frequently because all three properties drew from the same three small 11,000-litre water tanks. According to the Auckland Council website, a family of two adults and two children requires two 32,000-litre tanks of water to ensure there is enough.
The tenants tried to raise the issue with the landlord, who refused to replace them because it was too expensive.
The tenants also claimed the quality of the water was poor, saying it was cloudy and “tasted funny.” They claimed they were “constantly getting sore stomachs.” They said the quality of the water was so bad they were forced to buy bottled water.
Photographs sent to the tribunal also appeared to show a 10cm layer of “thick black sediment” at the bottom of all three water tanks.
In her decision, Pollak said: “I am satisfied the tenants have proven they were not provided with sufficient potable water.
“It was not reasonable in all the circumstances for the landlord to provide 11,000-litre water storage capacity to three households knowing that each household required far more than that amount of water.
“I find the owners intentionally put the tenants to the stress and inconvenience of being without water every 1.5 weeks for up to 48 hours and to having the responsibility for monitoring the water levels daily for three households without an easy way to see the water levels. To save them the costs involved with providing these three households with adequate potable water.”
Property was ‘unlawful’
Pollak also sided with the tenants on their claim that the property was unlawful.
She found that the properties being rented by the family and others did not meet the building code and did not have the proper consents.
She said that on the “balance of probabilities”, the landlord knew this “but decided to rent all three units out to earn money off its investment until it could afford to develop the property it had land banked”.
The landlord was also found to have not provided sufficient smoke alarms. The landlord also breached the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment of the property by sending contractors over without warning.
Final decision
In her final decision, Pollak said: “These breaches were prolonged and resulted in the tenants and their family living in cold, damp and potentially mouldy conditions without adequate potable water or access to proper toilet facilities and they experienced considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenities they are paying rent to enjoy.”
She found the landlord had shown a “cavalier attitude” to the tenants.
As a result, the tenants were awarded $3,585.71 for the landlord’s failure to maintain the toilet, $5,742.86 for the water issues, $1,450 as reimbursement for bottled water, $4,800 for RTA and HIR breaches, a 40% rent rebate of $12,760 for leasing an unlawful property, $750 for insufficient smoke alarms, a $27 filing fee reimbursement, and the $2200 bond was ordered to be returned.
In total, the tenants were awarded $30,615.57.
Pollak ordered the tenants to be charged no more than $330 per week in rent until the end of the tenancy on March 2.
The landlords attempted to have their names suppressed, but Pollak denied the application and published the address.
They have lodged an appeal in the District Court against the tribunal’s decision, arguing it is incorrect and not supported by evidence on a number of counts.
