He and a previous property manager were also ordered to pay exemplary damages and compensation to the tenants for having to live with the state of this property for 12 years.
While $5000 in compensation had been paid to the tenants, another $5000 in exemplary damages was outstanding.
The tenants of the Cannons Creek property signed an agreement with PK Property Services in 2012, which managed the tenancy until January 2024.
It was then taken over by Tapro Ltd, whose sole director and shareholder was Perera. Tapro had always been the owner of the property.
An investigation was launched by Tcit after a complaint in September 2023. The property had been assessed by a Healthy Homes Initiative provider after a medical referral.
Mbie said Tcit identified several issues, including gaps and holes throughout the property causing draughts, significant mould on the ceiling, rotten spouting and guttering, multiple windows that were unable to be opened or closed, slippery stairs due to water leaking in from the windows, and a lack of suitable heating in the living room.
A weathertight assessor said in October 2023 it was not fit for human occupation.
The tenants told the Tenancy Tribunal they had no choice but to move in, in 2012, because they were in dire need of housing.
But the family frequently fell ill with respiratory problems during the years they lived there. One child developed rheumatic fever.
Despite raising concerns about the condition of the property with their landlord, the tenants said little work was done until Tcit became involved.
“This home was in a poor state when Tcit commenced its investigation, as it had not been adequately maintained for a number of years. I have no trouble in finding that this home was prone to damp from at least 2014,” the tribunal adjudicator said.
The adjudicator also rejected Perera’s claim that he could not do the maintenance due to a lack of funds.
“Operating a tenancy is a business. If a business is unaffordable, it cannot, or should not, continue,” they said.
“Obligations under the act are not contingent upon available funds. There were options available to both respondents when the maintenance got out of hand, none of which were taken, to the detriment of the tenants.”
Tcit national manager Brett Wilson said both landlords should be well aware of their obligations under the act.
“A landlord is required to address the concerns raised by a tenant within a reasonable period, but in this case, they did not take any notable action until Tcit became involved.
“The family living at this address were particularly vulnerable as they did not have alternate housing options and had all suffered health issues likely as a result of the condition of the property. Tcit will not hesitate to take tribunal action if necessary to ensure a fair outcome for tenants and to hold landlords to account if they do not meet their obligations under the Act.”
Wilson said Perera had failed to comply with the work order to complete essential repairs to the windows at the property.
“The landlord had until the end of March to complete these repairs. Instead of doing what he needed to do to improve the condition of the property, he removed the windows from one of the bedrooms, replaced them with cardboard and cling wrap and then left the country for an extended period, thereby making things worse.
“It is unacceptable for any landlord to treat tenants in this manner, particularly when there is also non-compliance with a Tenancy Tribunal order. Tcit is taking further action to ensure that Tapro Ltd comply with their basic responsibilities as a landlord.”
The windows had since been reinstated.
If a landlord intentionally breaches a restraining order, this is an offence tried in the District Court and under Section 109A of the Residential Tenancies Act they are liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3600.
– RNZ
Lotto Powerball: Numbers are in – are you $23 million richer?