A group of tenants were awarded over $12,000 after living in a building with a cockroach infestation so severe that they could not sleep at night because of the sound of the insects scurrying across the ceiling.

The tenants’ ordeal was detailed in a recently published rental court decision.

The court found that the six tenants first reported a cockroach problem when they inspected the $1,300-per-week property and decided to rent it.

They informed the landlord – Pr Property Management Limited acting as agent for Bhavika Enterprises Lrd – and the landlord assured them that a pest controller would be called to stop the infestation before their tenancy began.

However, the court found: “The landlord claims that he carried out pest control prior to the commencement of the tenancy, but was unable to provide any receipts to support this claim.”

A text message provided by the tenants indicated that the house had been treated after they moved in, but this had been unsuccessful and the infestation continued.

After contacting the landlord and requesting another pest control visit, the tenants were told it could take two weeks for all the insects to die.

This did not happen and the problem began to “worsen”.

The group eventually took matters into their own hands and purchased pesticides. This temporarily contained the infestation, but the insects soon returned with a vengeance.

The cockroaches were also blamed for the failure of two dishwashers, one of which was already broken at the start of the tenancy in January 2023.

The landlord arranged for a replacement, which only arrived after more than three weeks. By the end of April 2023, it no longer worked.

The following month, a technician informed the tenants that a part in the dishwasher was defective. The cause was the cockroach infestation.

At the end of July 2023, the landlord bought a new dishwasher. Until it was installed, the tenants were without a dishwasher for another 15 weeks.

Despite the dishwasher being damaged by cockroaches, the landlord did not carry out any further pest control.

“The tenants had to contend with a severe cockroach infestation throughout the tenancy, which prevented them from sleeping at night due to the noise of the cockroaches scurrying around on the ceiling and caused problems with the dishwasher,” the court detailed.

“This ongoing infestation has also meant that they had to have all of their belongings decontaminated after their tenancy ended and before they could safely move their belongings to a new building.”

However, tribunal judge Michelle Pollak found that two weeks after the tenants’ tenancy ended, the landlord provided a receipt for a pest control company to carry out a cockroach treatment.

The group also had to live with a broken stove for months before being asked to pay for a replacement.

When tenants moved into the property, they said only one of five gas stoves worked, making cooking difficult. They were also concerned about how safe it would be to cook on a broken stove.

After asking the landlord to fix the problem, the tenants were told they would have to pick up a new stove from a private address and pay the seller $250.

The tenants refused to do this, and about a week later the landlord brought over a new stove. However, when a technician came to install it, it turned out that the stove was the wrong size for the countertop.

The defective stove had to be reinstalled and the tenants waited about a month for a working replacement.

They were also threatened with eviction if they did not replace a toilet that the landlord said they had broken.

The tenants had provided evidence that the toilet was “old” and that they had neither negligently nor intentionally caused damage to it, the court said in its reasoning.

“The tenants refused to pay the requested costs because they claimed that the house was about 20 years old and the toilet also appeared to be about the same age,” Pollak said.

“The crack was not due to any negligent act or omission on their part and they considered it to be normal wear and tear and a cost that should be borne by the landlord.”

In her decision, Pollak stated that the property management company had engaged in a “pattern of conduct” in which it frequently attempted to get tenants to pay for costs and maintenance that were the responsibility of the landlord.

It was also found that the landlord had “unlawfully” increased the rent to $1,400 before a full year of tenancy had passed.

According to the Residential Tenancy Act, a rent increase is not permitted within 12 months of the start of a tenancy.

Following the court hearing, the tenants were awarded $12,640.68 in compensation and damages.

The total included $3,642 for the broken stove, $4,607 for the landlord’s lack of maintenance of the dishwasher, and $1,128 for failure to control the cockroach infestation.