A landlord who says her tenant poisoned her dogs with chocolate has had her claim for compensation declined by the Tenancy Tribunal, and been told to pay $1320 to the tenant.
Kate Bone rented a property to a tenant, whose name was suppressed, from early May last year. But the tenancy ended on May 27.
The tenant said the landlord had terminated her tenancy without grounds, and Bone filed her own claim for damage to carpet, loss of rent and doctor's fees.
The tenanted property was a granny flat of her home on the ground floor. A locked door connected the two premises.
Bone said the tenant had breached her agreement by bringing another dog on to the premises, having guests who smoked, falling into rent arrears and entering Bone's home.
She only gave her tenant two days' notice, although she granted a two-day extension.
The tribunal adjudicator noted that this was not possible under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
Bone initially said she had not considered the arrangement a tenancy covered by that law.
"The landlord says that she now understands her obligations under the RTA and accepts that her actions in issuing the termination notice were a breach of the RTA."
The adjudicator said, having found that Bone committed an unlawful act, it had to be decided whether exemplary damages should be ordered.
"The landlord's intent was clear. In her evidence, the landlord said that she just wanted the tenant gone.
"The tenant said that she was shocked and upset to receive the notice to terminate. She got a workmate to cover her work and went to the house of a friend. She sent an email to the landlord asking for a brief extension. That extension was granted. The tenant moved out of the premises… and moved to her daughter's."
She did not find alternative accommodation until the following month.
"At the hearing, it seemed clear that the landlord was apologetic for her actions. The landlord said that the notice had been given in main because she no longer felt that she could trust the tenant," the adjudicator said.
The adjudicator said aggravating factors were the short-notice period, and the fact that tenants should be able to rely on the terms of the RTA. But the landlord had misunderstood her legal rights, had not previous breaches of the law and was apologetic.
The adjudicator said exemplary damages of 20% of the maximum $6500 possible were appropriate.
For her part, Bone wanted compensation for her carpet.
She said the tenant gave chocolate drops to her dogs, which could be toxic.
"Both dogs became extremely ill and they both vomited on the landlord's carpet causing substantial damage to the carpet. The landlord's evidence was that the fluid was so copious that the carpets could not simply be cleaned. The damaged area of the carpet was replaced with identical carpet at a cost of $1385."
But the adjudicator said because the damage was at her home and not the rented property, the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over it.
The adjudicator also said the landlord could not claim for loss of rent because it was her act in unlawfully terminating the tenancy that had brought it to an end.
She also claimed $83 for doctor's fees because she said the tenant's actions caused her stress and anxiety.
"In a claim of this nature, the tribunal would normally require some professional medical evidence to support the causation between the action complained of and the illness. No evidence was supplied by the landlord, other than a copy of the receipt for the consultation," the adjudicator said.
"The burden of proving the claim is on the landlord. The landlord must prove her claim to the usual civil standard of proof. That it is more likely than not. I do not consider that the landlord's evidence has reached that evidentiary standard and the claim for compensation is dismissed."
