Serepisos tenants’ claim quashed

Long-time tenants of a Wellington dairy that caught fire in March, have had their claim for compensation thrown out by the Tenancy Tribunal.

Narendra and Bharti Gandhi had been tenants of Demetrios Serepisos’ two-storey Kilbirnie property for 25 years.

Serepisos is the uncle of wellknown Wellington businessman and former reality television star Terry Serepisos.

A blaze earlier this year, which spread to a neighbouring building, destroyed the property.

The Gandhis, who did not have contents insurance, sought compensation for possessions including beds, clothing and a television they claimed were not damaged by the fire, but were removed without permission.

Narendra Gandhi and Serepisos visited the property three days after the fire but there was no arrangement at that time about the removal of anything from the property.

Months later Serepisos was asked by his insurer to have all remaining items removed so the building could be strengthened to avoid any danger.

As a result all that was left inside was removed.

Serepisos said he had no control over what happened after the fire as his insurer had taken over.

The cost of removing all the items was about $60,000, the tribunal said.

Serepisos claimed the damage caused by the fire, smoke and water used meant the Gandhis’ possessions were valueless. The Gandhis disagreed.

The tribunal found that the Gandhis’ evidence did not show that the items that remained after the fire were valuable.

Under the Residential Tenancies Act a landlord can not prematurely dispose of a tenant’s goods, which are defined in the act as ‘‘things of value’’.

‘‘Because of the considerable doubt that exists about the condition of the items and the high probability that there was damage of some sort . . . to all Mr and Ms Gandhi’s items from the fire, it is not possible for me to establish that what was left at the property was ‘goods’,’’ the tribunal said.

Serepisos had no obligation to deal with what was left at the property in the same way he would have if the Gandhis’ belongings were not damaged, the tribunal said.

It was ‘‘reasonable’’ for the items to be removed, it said.

‘‘[I]t is not possible for me to establish that what was left at the property was ‘goods’.’’ Tenancy Tribunal decision