One student said they signed what they thought was a tenancy agreement with their landlord.
However, the Tenancy Tribunal found the document they signed was effectively a flatmate agreement, which installed the landlord’s sister as head tenant.
"The head tenant enforced extreme and controlling rules," the student said.
The chore list was described as "excessive" and "intensive", breaching the limit of what should be reasonably required, while house rules would "change all the time".
These included pulling out the oven once a week to clean underneath, heavy lifting of all furniture once a week to vacuum under, forcing tenants to use the frypan with a lid at all times and soft plastic recycling was compulsory such as washing out and drying potato chip bags.
"If put in the main rubbish, they’d be left outside our bedroom doors. These extreme military style rules made peaceful living impossible, and we all felt bullied and unsafe.
"There was very limited heating allowed in winter — we were only allowed in evenings, fireplace and wood was rationed.
"The sister was unpredictable to live with and we all worried for our own safety."
The student spoke to the Otago Daily Times in the hope that others were warned to make sure they were signing on to a proper tenancy agreement.
The student applied twice to the Tenancy Tribunal to seek redress, but on both occasions, the tribunal decided it could not rule against the landlord or his sister, because the students had not signed what amounted to a residential tenancy agreement.
Despite it not being ruled a tenancy agreement, the student was made to pay a $600 bond, and she felt she was treated as a tenant.
The landlord disputed the student’s version of events.
"Given some of these accusations are demonstrably untrue I am hesitant to believe much else.
"There may have been some confusion regarding the type of the tenancy. This was clarified in the appropriate forum which twice found in my favour.
"Personal disputes/disagreements between residents — all of whom are adults — and how they live within the house are nothing to do with me. I therefore make no comment on such matters."
The landlord’s sister also said all the accusations levelled at her were untrue.
The student said the agreement itself clearly reflected an Residential Tenancy Agreement (RTA) tenancy.
"I felt that by signing an RTA agreement, ‘in writing’ it meant that I had effectively opted in to the RTA.
"I felt very deceived."
The ODT has also seen other testimonies from other flatmates, who experienced similar treatment.
"When stand-alone, the rules imposed by the sister are not unreasonable," another flatmate said in testimony obtained by the ODT.
"However, the intensity of fixed strict rule-following and inflexibility of rules add pressure to the tenants’ daily living and essential quality of living."
Conflicts arose in the flat environment frequently as a result, the testimony said.
Many tenants felt "unsafe" and considered leaving the place, it concluded.
Another tenant described the sister to the ODT as the "flatmate from hell" adding she was "extremely transactional" and charged visitors to the flat $10 for a shower. There had been more than 30 tenants in the past five years at the property.
They also warned people to take a close look at any contract before signing on to a lease.
MBIE Tenancy Practice and Stewardship manager Paul Coggan said common exceptions to the RTA included living arrangements where the tenant resides with the landlord or a member of the landlord’s family, certain types of student accommodation, and some flatting situations that did not meet the criteria for a tenancy under the Act.
"We strongly encourage individuals to carefully read and understand any agreement they are entering into. If anything is unclear, ask questions and seek clarification from the other party to ensure mutual understanding.
"The Tenancy Services website provides helpful resources to assist individuals in determining whether their living arrangement is covered by the Act."
Mr Coggan said even if the arrangement was not covered by the Act, people still had rights.
Solicitor Rupert O’Brien, of Community Law, said this was a difficult situation for the tenant because the tribunal ruled they were not covered under the Residential Tenancy Act, meaning their only recourse was the disputes tribunal or the District Court.
"So she was under the impression she was covered by all these rights and the tribunals decided that she wasn’t.
"There’s all sorts of references to the Residential Tenancies Act in the agreement that they actually signed — despite all of that the Tribunal decided that somehow they hadn’t contracted in for the Residential Tenancies Act."
Mr O’Brien said this was also a situation where "potentially, regulation of property managers might be helpful".
