What does the tenancy tribunal say?
Here are 2 examples of what the Tenancy Tribunal considers “uninhabitable”.
Case study #1 – watkin vs brazier property investments
Directly after the Canterbury earthquakes, the tenant’s home didn’t have power or water, and there was damage to the toilet.
Sounds like the property would be uninhabitable, right?
But, in this case, the judge ruled the house was not uninhabitable (i.e. it could still be lived in). Many people lived in homes without water and power directly after the earthquakes.
In their words: “The term ‘uninhabitable’ should … be interpreted according to the post-quake expectations of the community in question.”
Applying this to Auckland, if your rental property is partially damaged, you will need to decrease your rent.
But, your tenants cannot up and leave with 2 days’ notice unless the property is structurally unsound.
That’s because many people live in partially damaged properties right now (more below).
Case study #2 – harvie-selter vs woo jo
In this case, one of the property's bedrooms was extremely leaky. There was so much water the tenant even had to move the bed into the lounge.
The tenants tried to end their fixed-term tenancy agreement saying that the property was uninhabitable. But, the adjudicator noted that the tenants could still live in part of the property.
That means the tenants couldn’t use Section 59 to end the tenancy with 2 days’ notice.
Applying this to Auckland. If only a portion of your property is severely damaged, your tenants can’t just stop paying rent. But, you will need to reduce what they pay.