If a cyclone had flattened her home, or left it unsafe to occupy, Sam Armstrong would have been long-gone from the Muriwai property she rented.
Instead, she was allowed to shift back in after five weeks and paid rent every week for another year, living there happily. EQC had assessed the property and given it a white placard, meaning it was ok to occupy.
With a happy landlord, Armstrong and her partner expected to keep living there as long as they liked, until the property manager suddenly sent them notice terminating the tenancy.
First it was for 90 days, then less than a week later that was changed to seven days' notice to vacate.
One year to the day from the cyclone, Auckland Council had reassessed the land as Risk Category 3. There was a future risk to life from a future extreme weather event. It would be eligible for a voluntary buyout funded by ratepayers and taxpayers.
But it's far from clear whether that means the couple needed to evacuate once more, never to return.
In fact, it may be confusing advice and a rush to react that has forced them out of their home.
What triggered that seven-day notice period?
Fair Go traced the likely trigger to a short email sent from Auckland Council's Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Office to both the landlord and his property manager, Ray White Grey Lynn, when they were seeking advice on what to do with the tenants, days after receiving the initial offer to enter the buyout programme.
The Recovery Office sent this:
"While white placards indicate a building has suffered light or no damage and can be used, this does not necessarily mean the building is safe.
"If council has assessed the property and assigned a Risk Category 3, this means there is an intolerable risk to life at the property. Direction on how to manage tenancies for rental properties damaged in a natural disaster is set out under Section 59 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
"I hope this information was of use to you."
That motivated the property manager to send that seven-day notice, who said he also consulted Tenancy Services.
"This was not a decision made lightly, however, the health and safety of our tenants is not just a legal obligation, but a moral obligation which we take incredibly seriously," said Aaron Haabjoern from Ray White Grey Lynn.
"If we find ourselves in a similar situation again, we will once again seek advice from the relevant agencies and follow that advice."
But landlord Ross Milner had wanted to offer 90 days, to give the couple time to find a new place while the buyout process inched forward.
"At the end of the day I'm not a lawyer and rely on the legal advice team at my letting agent who told me they had to change notice period and give a seven day notice, and had already done so that morning."
Was it even advice? And was it correct?
Section 59 allows a seven-day notice to terminate a tenancy, but only if the premises are destroyed, or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable.
An expert who landlords consult regularly told Fair Go that this means Armstrong should not have had to leave so quickly.
"We're talking about potential destruction to the property, we're not talking about actual destruction. There has to be actual destruction for that seven-day notice to even kick in, and it doesn't sound like there's actual destruction, says Sarina Gibbon, general manager of Auckland Property Investors Association.
While she agrees the note from Council was alarming and would spur people to react very quickly, anyone advising a landlord needs to be careful to understand the law themselves.
APIA is supporting legislation to regulate the property management industry.
Gibbon appreciates the note from Council was alarming, but she urges landlords to have candid conversations about what's best for all, as tenancy law also allows "mutually agreeable termination at a date and time that is both humane to the tenant and pragmatic to the landlord".
Auckland Council official Mace Ward from Tāmaki Makaurau Recovery Office endorsed that in a statement to Fair Go.
"In trying to be helpful, our team included links to section 59 of the Residential Tenancies Act. We could have been much clearer with that information and particularly that the home was habitable, and that it was up to the tenant and the landlord together to make a decision whether to stay or not."
Gibbon told Fair Go she had difficulty getting information from Council about the buyout process as it applied to her address.
"I've tried to speak to the council but I'm not the homeowner so that just went round in circles."
Ward said Council will treat any request from a tenant on a case-by-case basis and would confirm the status of the land, if tenants ask.
It's an old story for lobby group Renters United.
"In this country we've got this idea that renters are basically temporarily-embarrassed homeowners, so we don't really design the laws around looking after renters and they're not placed at the centre of our considerations like property owners are," said Renters United spokesperson Luke Somervell.
"I just don't think the law is prepared for the severity and intensity of these climate disasters that will happen in the future."
Too late for Armstrong
All of this came too late to prevent the sudden move for Armstrong, her partner and their dogs. A search of TradeMe showed about 3500 rentals in Auckland, but few allowed pets.
"We're sitting at about 20 or 30 houses at the moment that would accept two dopey Labradors," Armstrong said wistfully.
The sudden reaction meant tapping their savings for $7500 in lost wages, a new bond, moving costs, and airfares and petrol for family who arrived to help.
Armstrong is a planner, she runs a team of 46 at the company she works for, so she backed herself to meet that brutally short deadline.
"It's upheaval. We are so lucky that we've got great whānau support, but for someone else being put in that position that doesn't have that available, yeah it's tough."
Tenancy Services says mutual agreement or self-resolution is always the preferred course of action as long as that's lawful, and all health and safety aspects are considered.
"If the tenant believes this notice to be incorrect, they can challenge this through the Tenancy Tribunal," said Kat Watson, head of tenancy at Tenancy Services.
Armstrong is weighing that up - she bears no ill-will towards her former landlord and she has managed to find a new place to live.
She does feel tenants need to know their rights and ask questions rather than rely on landlords to give them all the information - and that emergency savings are crucial in a world that is getting less certain.
SHARE ME