Vicky Katu and her partner had lived at the Gray Avenue property for about 20 years when it was sold to Katu’s accountant Anmol Seth, who is now her landlord.

Seth was going to subdivide the property and build new houses, while Katu continued living there as a tenant.

When the development was finished, Seth was to pay Katu a $140,000 deposit due as part of the purchase price.

There was an understanding Katu would pay for maintenance at the property and Seth would meet the redevelopment costs. The property has never been redeveloped.

The Tenancy Tribunal described the tenancy situation as unusual. It said Seth seems to have taken a “hands off” approach to compliance with his obligations while Katu was a tenant for about six years.

He never made any property inspections during her tenancy.

Katu’s tenancy started in October 2014 and in December last year Seth issued a termination notice. Katu moved out in January this year.

Both Katu and Seth ended up at the tribunal – Seth claiming unpaid rent, costs for repairs, rubbish removal and pool cleaning.

Katu claimed the termination notice was retaliatory, the property was not insulated, there were not enough smoke alarms and she wanted costs repaid for maintenance she had carried out.

General theme

Several tribunal hearings have been held over the issues and adjudicator M Edison said Seth’s response illustrated the general theme of his submissions, which often focused on the credibility of the other party.

Katu complained the property was not insulated properly, and she had never received an insulation report from Seth, the landlord.

He told the tribunal it was a false accusation as Katu had sold the property to him in “full compliance”. Katu accepted the property was built with ceiling insulation in the 1950s and the tribunal said it was not established the property failed to comply with the RTA.

Katu also claimed only one smoke alarm, part of a monitored burglar alarm, was installed, which she paid for and there should have been others.

Seth responded: “False, monitoring no landlord has to pay.” He claimed there were smoke alarms in the property when it was sold to him but he admitted he has never conducted any property inspections.

Photos claiming to show smoke alarms showed only one had been fitted but removed. Regulations require smoke alarms to be installed within three metres of each bedroom, at least one alarm on each level of a property and at least one in the living areas.

Adjudicator Edison said the landlord was in breach of the act but a mitigating factor was the unusual landlord and tenant situation.

“The tenant continued to live in the home she had sold to Seth and there was an arrangement or understanding – never documented – in the nature of a joint venture, which would result in new houses being developed on the site.

“Katu says it was agreed she would maintain the property.

“This may have informed Seth’s approach to his obligations, but it must have been clear after a few years the development would not be proceeding. These factors reduce the award of exemplary damages to $1,500.”

Credibility

Seth again called the credibility of Katu into question when she claimed $12,046 for maintenance she had carried out at the property.

This included installation of a kitchenette and a fence, unblocking a drain, replacing the hot water cylinder, and replacing various lights. He said he had never been informed of any repairs that were needed.

He replied: “False, she has accepted that she never informed and was dealt to in previous hearings including being dismissed as well, thereafter she has taken fixtures and fittings to justify her stealing.

“She is resubmitting hoping one or the other judge will get fooled to grant her unfounded claims to evade her liability for other losses.”

The tribunal said there was no evidence Katu brought these matters to Seth’s attention and he had no obligation to investigate and repair defects he did not know about.

Claiming the termination notice she was given was retaliatory, Katu claimed Seth said the premises were required for a family member.

She said the notice was false because Seth’s sister had her own home, his mother lived in India and he lived in a house he owned in Flat Bush.

Seth told the Tribunal his sister was a Middlemore Hospital nurse and needed to move into the property at the time.

The tribunal found the notice was not retaliatory and there was no evidence contradicting Seth’s explanation.

Rent dispute

The landlord claimed rent of $38,491 to January 25 this year, although there were different versions of the tenancy agreement. The weekly rental was different in each document.

The document relied on by Katu had a weekly rent of $620. The rental agreement relied on by Seth had a weekly rent of $693. For the first few years, Katu was paying $3,000 rent a month, equating to $692.31 a week.

Katu claimed there was an agreement to reduce the rent to $2,000 a month from November 2018.

But the tribunal said it was not persuaded there was an agreement to reduce the rent, even if she was concerned the subdivision had not taken place and was trying to modify the way the costs were shared.

While there were text messages showing Katu and Seth discussed sharing costs differently in late 2018, the tribunal found there was no clear agreement to reduce the rent and it was $3,000 a month.

However, it did reduce the rent arrears after taking into account Katu’s payment of $14,800 for fixed water charges and council rates, which are the responsibility of the landlord.

Compensation claim

Seth also claimed $40,000 compensation for a number of damage issues, for example, a towel rail removed from the wall, a broken switch, damage to the ceiling, damage to the walls, cracked windows, damage to light fittings, damage to doors, damage to an external downpipe, damage to the garage door, broken blinds and ripped curtains and also claimed bathroom fixtures had been stolen from the sleepout bathroom.

He produced photos of the house’s state at the end of the tenancy. But Katu told the tribunal Seth’s photographs reflected maintenance issues that were present when they purchased the property many years ago or when he bought it.

She said Seth had never put any money into fixing or upgrading anything in the house, because he was going to put houses on the back of the property within two years, and the sleepout was going to be demolished.

Adjudicator Edison said the key difficulty with Seth’s claim for damage was he did not conduct any property inspections.

“In particular, there was no ingoing inspection report, or photographs showing the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.

“It is not possible to determine whether any of the damage was caused by the tenant during the tenancy.”

However, the tribunal did award Seth $200 for general cleaning costs when he had claimed $2,070, which were found to be unreasonable.

He was also awarded $150 for a broken window, $300 for pool cleaning, $500 for rubbish removal after claiming $1,000 and $200 for mowing and weeding the garden.