What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4406060 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4406060?

Property Damage: $340.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4406060?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4406060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9562089-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4406060 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4406060?

Property Damage: $340.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4406060?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4406060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9562089-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

32 Gloria Avenue, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4406060 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4406060. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs	$340.76		Repairs

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Thompson as Property Manager and Mr Kumar as accounts administrator. Both tenants appeared in person.
The tenancy began on 26 February 2021 and ended in March 2023.
The landlord has filed a claim seeking the following compensation: a. Water arrears in the amount of $2,354.17 b. Debt collection fees totalling $242.15 c. Watertight Plumbing and Gasfitting invoice in the amount of $340.76 d. Reimbursement of filing fee of $20.44 Background
In approximately June 2021 the tenants sought permission from the landlord to install a plumbed-in fridge. The landlord agreed on the basis that the plumbing work was undertaken by registered plumber.
[Tenant 1], who is an electrician, contacted a registered plumber he knows professionally who agreed to do the work. I was provided with correspondence between [Tenant 1] and the plumber confirming that the work was completed by 12 August 2021. I am satisfied that the plumber engaged was a registered plumber.
On 25 July 2022 (nearly one year later) the tenants unexpectedly received an email from Ms Grinter, who was the property manager at that time, advising that she had just discovered that Quinovic had not been charging them for water: “The owner has brought it to my attention that there is a decent amount owing in water, now, I can’t see we have been charging you. For some reason we haven’t been receiving any water bills for your property. We are currently speaking with watercare to rectify this urgently. We can’t charge you anything until we receive all water bills and deduct any fixed charges. Once we have done this I can advise you of the amount outstanding, it will be a lot so we can come up with a payment plan. Another thing I want to check is if there are any leaks at the property? The water bills are very high and I don’t think you could possibly use that amount of water. Can you please check the property for any obvious leaks? If there is one I will have to apply for a leak allowance as well”.
The tenants said that they were overseas in the UK at the time that they received the email. They arrived back on 28 July 2022 and had a look around the property but could not see any obvious leaks.
The following day, 29 July 2022, the landlord engaged their plumber to investigate. The plumber went under the house and found a hole in the pipes leading to the plumbed in fridge. The plumber replaced the pipe and issued an invoice the same day in the amount of $340.76.
On 3 August 2022 the tenants received a further email from the Office Administrator at Quinovic attaching “your latest Water Charge Invoice”. This was in fact the first invoice received by the tenants during the tenancy. The invoice was in the amount of $5505.78 and included debt collection charges from Watercare.
The tenants immediately contacted Quinovic by phone and send a follow up email recording that they “[w]e are more than happy to pay for water usage at the property over the course of the tenancy however we do not believe that it is fair or reasonable to ask us to pay for any late payment fees or an ongoing water leak that we had no way of knowing about as we were not receiving any bills. I would propose we pay the average use prior to the water leak of $51.72 for the duration of our tenancy of 17 months to date so a total of $879.31”.
The tenants’ offer was not accepted by Quinovic and a number of further emails were exchanged without any resolution being reached. It appears that the tenants then became caught up in a dispute between the owners and Quinovic and were forced to take legal advice as to who they should be dealing with. Quinovic then sent the tenants with a 14 day notice.
The tenants then contacted the Principal Owner of Quinovic, Kim van Gog, in an effort to explain the situation and reach an amicable solution.
Kim van Gog replied on 1 September 2022, advising that “[t]he best thing to do now is pay the average amount owed. I will get our accounts department to let you know what this is, then we will need to sort out the rest, we will only need to go to tribunal if we don’t receive any money and can’t get a resolution between you and the owner on what is owed”.
The accounts department then sent an email to the tenants asking them to pay $930.96 based on the average usage for the first seven months, being $51.72, which the tenants paid.
The landlord then filed this application on 21 September 2022. Is the landlord entitled to compensation for the balance owing, debt collection fees and for the plumbers invoice?
At the hearing the landlord said that the excess water was caused by the tenants plumbed in fridge and should be their responsibility. They say that the tenant should have contacted them to say that they hadn’t received any water invoices.
The tenants say that they used a registered plumber as requested and that if the landlord has provided them with regular water invoices, they would have discovered the problem immediately and the plumber could have come and fixed the problem while the work was under warranty.
The tenants submitted evidence showing that they had contacted the landlord throughout the tenancy to advise that they had received mail addressed to the owners (2 March 2021: “a couple of letters have arrived, is there a forwarding address”, 27 May 2021 “[t]here is a stack of mail here for the landlords”. They explained that they reached agreement with Quinovic whereby they would leave mail addressed to the owners in a particular spot, which then be collected during the regular inspections. They said that it never occurred to them to open the mail and that it would not have been proper for them to do so as it was not addressed to them.
In relation to water charges, the District Court held in Woollams v Simpson (DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1583, 16 March 2006), that there was an implied term in the tenancy agreement that the landlord would provide water accounts at regular intervals, and within a reasonable time, to enable payment to be made. The Court determined that, because the landlord had failed to do so, the tenant was only required to pay the last two accounts, which covered a period of just over four months.
Here, the landlord’s failure to provide water invoices has led to a serious water leak continuing undiscovered for ten months. The tenants cannot possibly be held responsible for the additional excess water charges incurred. If the landlord had not breached their obligations then then the leak would have been discovered and the excess charges would have been quickly contained, and no debt collection charges would have been applied.
In reaching my decision I have taken into account the fact that, had the landlord been providing invoices, the tenant would still have been liable for the first large water bill for $657.04 ($637.42 less fixed charges). However the fact that the tenant has already paid $51.72 towards this invoice, and Watercare provided a rebate in the amount of $902.96. In my view the rebate should be applied to this invoice.
It follows that the tenants cannot be liable for the debt collection charges that were incurred while the invoices remained unpaid.
The final matter for consideration is the plumber’s invoice in the amount of $340.76 for fixing the leak. I consider that it is reasonable for the tenants to compensate the landlord for the amount of this invoice. The tenants explained that when they were told that there might be a leak they conducted a search on their return from overseas and were unable to find a problem, because the fridge is located in the middle of the house and so the leak was not visible from the outside.
While I accept that, had the excess water been discovered earlier, it might have more easily occurred to them that the problem was the fridge, there is no evidence confirming this. I also consider that it was reasonable for the landlord to go ahead and instruct their plumber to fix the problem once it was discovered (rather than allowing the tenants’ plumber an opportunity to fix the problem under warranty) as the plumber was already on site, the problem was relatively urgent, and it was likely to be more economical to instruct the plumber to proceed to avoid further call out fees. Filing fee and name suppression
As the applicant landlord has not substantially succeeded in their claim, there is no basis on which to refund the filing fee.
The tenants have been the substantially successful party. As such they are entitled to name suppression pursuant to Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4406060. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs	$340.76		Repairs

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Thompson as Property Manager and Mr Kumar as accounts administrator. Both tenants appeared in person.
The tenancy began on 26 February 2021 and ended in March 2023.
The landlord has filed a claim seeking the following compensation: a. Water arrears in the amount of $2,354.17 b. Debt collection fees totalling $242.15 c. Watertight Plumbing and Gasfitting invoice in the amount of $340.76 d. Reimbursement of filing fee of $20.44 Background
In approximately June 2021 the tenants sought permission from the landlord to install a plumbed-in fridge. The landlord agreed on the basis that the plumbing work was undertaken by registered plumber.
[Tenant 1], who is an electrician, contacted a registered plumber he knows professionally who agreed to do the work. I was provided with correspondence between [Tenant 1] and the plumber confirming that the work was completed by 12 August 2021. I am satisfied that the plumber engaged was a registered plumber.
On 25 July 2022 (nearly one year later) the tenants unexpectedly received an email from Ms Grinter, who was the property manager at that time, advising that she had just discovered that Quinovic had not been charging them for water: “The owner has brought it to my attention that there is a decent amount owing in water, now, I can’t see we have been charging you. For some reason we haven’t been receiving any water bills for your property. We are currently speaking with watercare to rectify this urgently. We can’t charge you anything until we receive all water bills and deduct any fixed charges. Once we have done this I can advise you of the amount outstanding, it will be a lot so we can come up with a payment plan. Another thing I want to check is if there are any leaks at the property? The water bills are very high and I don’t think you could possibly use that amount of water. Can you please check the property for any obvious leaks? If there is one I will have to apply for a leak allowance as well”.
The tenants said that they were overseas in the UK at the time that they received the email. They arrived back on 28 July 2022 and had a look around the property but could not see any obvious leaks.
The following day, 29 July 2022, the landlord engaged their plumber to investigate. The plumber went under the house and found a hole in the pipes leading to the plumbed in fridge. The plumber replaced the pipe and issued an invoice the same day in the amount of $340.76.
On 3 August 2022 the tenants received a further email from the Office Administrator at Quinovic attaching “your latest Water Charge Invoice”. This was in fact the first invoice received by the tenants during the tenancy. The invoice was in the amount of $5505.78 and included debt collection charges from Watercare.
The tenants immediately contacted Quinovic by phone and send a follow up email recording that they “[w]e are more than happy to pay for water usage at the property over the course of the tenancy however we do not believe that it is fair or reasonable to ask us to pay for any late payment fees or an ongoing water leak that we had no way of knowing about as we were not receiving any bills. I would propose we pay the average use prior to the water leak of $51.72 for the duration of our tenancy of 17 months to date so a total of $879.31”.
The tenants’ offer was not accepted by Quinovic and a number of further emails were exchanged without any resolution being reached. It appears that the tenants then became caught up in a dispute between the owners and Quinovic and were forced to take legal advice as to who they should be dealing with. Quinovic then sent the tenants with a 14 day notice.
The tenants then contacted the Principal Owner of Quinovic, Kim van Gog, in an effort to explain the situation and reach an amicable solution.
Kim van Gog replied on 1 September 2022, advising that “[t]he best thing to do now is pay the average amount owed. I will get our accounts department to let you know what this is, then we will need to sort out the rest, we will only need to go to tribunal if we don’t receive any money and can’t get a resolution between you and the owner on what is owed”.
The accounts department then sent an email to the tenants asking them to pay $930.96 based on the average usage for the first seven months, being $51.72, which the tenants paid.
The landlord then filed this application on 21 September 2022. Is the landlord entitled to compensation for the balance owing, debt collection fees and for the plumbers invoice?
At the hearing the landlord said that the excess water was caused by the tenants plumbed in fridge and should be their responsibility. They say that the tenant should have contacted them to say that they hadn’t received any water invoices.
The tenants say that they used a registered plumber as requested and that if the landlord has provided them with regular water invoices, they would have discovered the problem immediately and the plumber could have come and fixed the problem while the work was under warranty.
The tenants submitted evidence showing that they had contacted the landlord throughout the tenancy to advise that they had received mail addressed to the owners (2 March 2021: “a couple of letters have arrived, is there a forwarding address”, 27 May 2021 “[t]here is a stack of mail here for the landlords”. They explained that they reached agreement with Quinovic whereby they would leave mail addressed to the owners in a particular spot, which then be collected during the regular inspections. They said that it never occurred to them to open the mail and that it would not have been proper for them to do so as it was not addressed to them.
In relation to water charges, the District Court held in Woollams v Simpson (DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1583, 16 March 2006), that there was an implied term in the tenancy agreement that the landlord would provide water accounts at regular intervals, and within a reasonable time, to enable payment to be made. The Court determined that, because the landlord had failed to do so, the tenant was only required to pay the last two accounts, which covered a period of just over four months.
Here, the landlord’s failure to provide water invoices has led to a serious water leak continuing undiscovered for ten months. The tenants cannot possibly be held responsible for the additional excess water charges incurred. If the landlord had not breached their obligations then then the leak would have been discovered and the excess charges would have been quickly contained, and no debt collection charges would have been applied.
In reaching my decision I have taken into account the fact that, had the landlord been providing invoices, the tenant would still have been liable for the first large water bill for $657.04 ($637.42 less fixed charges). However the fact that the tenant has already paid $51.72 towards this invoice, and Watercare provided a rebate in the amount of $902.96. In my view the rebate should be applied to this invoice.
It follows that the tenants cannot be liable for the debt collection charges that were incurred while the invoices remained unpaid.
The final matter for consideration is the plumber’s invoice in the amount of $340.76 for fixing the leak. I consider that it is reasonable for the tenants to compensate the landlord for the amount of this invoice. The tenants explained that when they were told that there might be a leak they conducted a search on their return from overseas and were unable to find a problem, because the fridge is located in the middle of the house and so the leak was not visible from the outside.
While I accept that, had the excess water been discovered earlier, it might have more easily occurred to them that the problem was the fridge, there is no evidence confirming this. I also consider that it was reasonable for the landlord to go ahead and instruct their plumber to fix the problem once it was discovered (rather than allowing the tenants’ plumber an opportunity to fix the problem under warranty) as the plumber was already on site, the problem was relatively urgent, and it was likely to be more economical to instruct the plumber to proceed to avoid further call out fees. Filing fee and name suppression
As the applicant landlord has not substantially succeeded in their claim, there is no basis on which to refund the filing fee.
The tenants have been the substantially successful party. As such they are entitled to name suppression pursuant to Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4406060 — Property damage at 32 Gloria Avenue, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4406060 — Property damage at 32 Gloria Avenue, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions