What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4451860 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4451860?

Compensation: Firewood Stacking: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4451860?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4451860?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8609261-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4451860 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4451860?

Compensation: Firewood Stacking: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4451860?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4451860?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8609261-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4451860 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4451860 — net $250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of Amenity	$200.00	Loss of Amenity
Compensation: Firewood stacking	$50.00	ensation to the landlord for the costs incurred. The landlord is ordered to pay $50.00 to the tenant.
Net award	$250.00
Bond	$8,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$250.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $250.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $8,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] appeared for all of the tenants. The landlord was represented by [The landlord’s representative].
The tenanted premises are at [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”).
The tenancy commenced on 5 July 2022 and ended on 23 October 2022.
The tenants have applied to the Tribunal for release of the bond and compensation for electricity costs, loss of amenity and wood stacking costs.
In any claim brought before the Tribunal, the “job” of proving any matter falls on the party bringing the claim. If the claim is brought by the tenant, then the burden or job of proving the claim falls on the tenant. If the claim is brought by the landlord, then similarly, the burden of proving the claim falls on the landlord.
In this case the job of proving the claim is on the tenant.
The party bringing the claim is required to prove their claim to the civil standard called the “balance of probabilities”. The point where I accept that it is more likely than not that their version of events is correct. In crude mathematical terms, this might be described as meaning that the party whose claim has a probability threshold of 51% will meet the standard of proof. If they only reach 50% or less, then as a matter of law their claim must fail.
Just because I may find for one party or the other on a particular issue, does not necessarily mean that the unsuccessful party is wrong. It merely means that on the evidence presented, I was not sufficiently certain to make an order.
The Tribunal is not required to set out all of the evidence proffered by the parties at the hearing, but they can be assured that it has been taken into account in reaching this decision. I do not intend to traverse the entirety of the dealings between the parties. Release of Bond.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. As the landlord has not filed a counterclaim, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. I informed the landlord at the hearing that this would not prevent them filing a counterclaim in the future should they wish to do so. Compensation
The premises have a modern underfloor heating system. It seems that the system is controlled by an app. The tenant says that they were never shown how to turn the underfloor heating on and off.
When the tenants first moved into the premises, the underfloor heating system only operated overnight.
The tenants say that they found the system to be expensive and they were unable to override the hours where it was operational.
At a later date, the tenant’s discovered that the system was now operating 24 hours a day.
The tenant’s say that the system operation has resulted in them receiving far greater electricity accounts than would otherwise have been the case. They seek compensation of $1,485.41.
The landlord said that the tenants did have the power to turn the underfloor system on or off. The issue was only raised with them by the tenants in September 2022.
The landlord said that the system moving to a 24 hour a day operation was unintentionally caused by their electrician whilst carrying out other work. The landlord says that there was only 3 days where the system was working 24 hours a day.
The landlord said that there were 2 families living at the premises consisting of a total of 9 people. The premises were very large.
The landlord explained that the electricity bills for the premises were as follows; • 15 July 2022 to 14 August 2022$950.84 • 15 August 2022 to 14 September 2022$811.68 • 15 September 2022 to 14 October 2022$657.96 • 15 October 2022 to 22 October 2022 $89.98
That is a total cost of $2,510.46.
The tenants ask for compensation of $1,485.11, which the tenant’s accept is a “guesstimate” by them.
As indicated previously, the onus of proof is on the tenant. They must be able to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities. Put simply, the evidence provided by the tenant’s falls well short of that. The Tribunal has no way of knowing how much of the electricity usage can be allocated to the underfloor heating system and how much to the other issues in what was a large house with a large number of residents during the winter months.
The application is dismissed. Loss of Amenity.
The tenants say that ongoing electrical faults at the premises during August and September meant that they did not have the use of their spa pool and the hot water in the master bedroom. Obviously, the rent paid by the tenants includes a portion for the use of those facilities.
They said that during a period of 4 weeks they could not use the spa or the hot water in the master bedroom for half of the time.
The landlord said that they were first told of the problem by the tenants on 22 August 2022. On 31 August 2022 they were then advised by the tenants that the issue had been fixed.
On 15 September 2022 the tenants again advised that the spa was not working. An electrician was sent on 16 September 2022 and the issue was fixed.
A landlord can only be held liable in these circumstances for a loss of amenity where they are told by the tenant about the issue. In this matter, I find that there has been a brief loss of amenity. I find that the loss of amenity during the period where the landlord was aware of the issue amounts at most to 1 week. The loss of enmity of the spa and hot water in the master bedroom I find to be $200.00. Firewood.
It was a term of the tenancy agreement between the parties that the landlord provides firewood at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenants say that there was a large stack of wood (seemingly far more than 9 cubic metres) at the premises. The wood had been placed both within a covered shed and stacked on the outside of the shed.
The tenants say that after 2 or 3 weeks of living at the premises, the stack collapsed. They say that whilst the wood that could be seen on the outside of the pile was neatly stacked, the wood behind that was simply loaded up in a random fashion.
The tenants say that they are not sure how the wood pile collapsed but suggest that it was due to poor stacking by the landlord or the landlord’s contractors.
They say that they stacked the wood and seek compensation of $450.00 being 3 hours of their labour at $150.00 per hour. The tenant carrying out the stacking is a qualified arborist and has used his charge out rate as a basis for the charge.
The landlord said that they were advised by the tenants of the problem with the wood pile on 5 September 2022. Subsequent discussions between the parties seem somewhat vague.
The discussions resulted in the landlord advising the tenants on 7 September 2022 that they would arrange for a contractor to come and stack the wood next week. The tenant told the landlord not to come as they didn’t accept liability for the cost of restacking.
On 14 September 2022, the tenants were told that a contractor would be there within 24-48 hours to restack the wood.
On 15 September 2022, the contractor arrived and discovered the tenant restacking the wood. The contractor left.
The landlord was invoiced by the contractor for his time.
The tenants said that they had not been told who was to pay for the contractor and rather than be liable for his costs, they decided to do the work themselves and invoice the landlord for it.
At no time has the landlord agreed that the tenants would stack the wood and that he would be liable for it, nor were the tenants told that they would be liable for it. This caused the subsequent confusion between the parties.
In the circumstances, the work having been carried out, the landlord has incurred a cost in having a contractor. I order that the tenant is entitled to charge for their labour at $30.00 per hour. That would bring the claim total to $90.00. I have deducted $40.00 from that sum as part compensation to the landlord for the costs incurred. The landlord is ordered to pay $50.00 to the tenant.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. I consider that both parties have been successful to an extent. There is little public interest in the details of the parties. I order suppression for both landlord and tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4451860 — net $250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of Amenity	$200.00	Loss of Amenity
Compensation: Firewood stacking	$50.00	ensation to the landlord for the costs incurred. The landlord is ordered to pay $50.00 to the tenant.
Net award	$250.00
Bond	$8,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$250.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $250.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $8,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] appeared for all of the tenants. The landlord was represented by [The landlord’s representative].
The tenanted premises are at [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”).
The tenancy commenced on 5 July 2022 and ended on 23 October 2022.
The tenants have applied to the Tribunal for release of the bond and compensation for electricity costs, loss of amenity and wood stacking costs.
In any claim brought before the Tribunal, the “job” of proving any matter falls on the party bringing the claim. If the claim is brought by the tenant, then the burden or job of proving the claim falls on the tenant. If the claim is brought by the landlord, then similarly, the burden of proving the claim falls on the landlord.
In this case the job of proving the claim is on the tenant.
The party bringing the claim is required to prove their claim to the civil standard called the “balance of probabilities”. The point where I accept that it is more likely than not that their version of events is correct. In crude mathematical terms, this might be described as meaning that the party whose claim has a probability threshold of 51% will meet the standard of proof. If they only reach 50% or less, then as a matter of law their claim must fail.
Just because I may find for one party or the other on a particular issue, does not necessarily mean that the unsuccessful party is wrong. It merely means that on the evidence presented, I was not sufficiently certain to make an order.
The Tribunal is not required to set out all of the evidence proffered by the parties at the hearing, but they can be assured that it has been taken into account in reaching this decision. I do not intend to traverse the entirety of the dealings between the parties. Release of Bond.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. As the landlord has not filed a counterclaim, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. I informed the landlord at the hearing that this would not prevent them filing a counterclaim in the future should they wish to do so. Compensation
The premises have a modern underfloor heating system. It seems that the system is controlled by an app. The tenant says that they were never shown how to turn the underfloor heating on and off.
When the tenants first moved into the premises, the underfloor heating system only operated overnight.
The tenants say that they found the system to be expensive and they were unable to override the hours where it was operational.
At a later date, the tenant’s discovered that the system was now operating 24 hours a day.
The tenant’s say that the system operation has resulted in them receiving far greater electricity accounts than would otherwise have been the case. They seek compensation of $1,485.41.
The landlord said that the tenants did have the power to turn the underfloor system on or off. The issue was only raised with them by the tenants in September 2022.
The landlord said that the system moving to a 24 hour a day operation was unintentionally caused by their electrician whilst carrying out other work. The landlord says that there was only 3 days where the system was working 24 hours a day.
The landlord said that there were 2 families living at the premises consisting of a total of 9 people. The premises were very large.
The landlord explained that the electricity bills for the premises were as follows; • 15 July 2022 to 14 August 2022$950.84 • 15 August 2022 to 14 September 2022$811.68 • 15 September 2022 to 14 October 2022$657.96 • 15 October 2022 to 22 October 2022 $89.98
That is a total cost of $2,510.46.
The tenants ask for compensation of $1,485.11, which the tenant’s accept is a “guesstimate” by them.
As indicated previously, the onus of proof is on the tenant. They must be able to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities. Put simply, the evidence provided by the tenant’s falls well short of that. The Tribunal has no way of knowing how much of the electricity usage can be allocated to the underfloor heating system and how much to the other issues in what was a large house with a large number of residents during the winter months.
The application is dismissed. Loss of Amenity.
The tenants say that ongoing electrical faults at the premises during August and September meant that they did not have the use of their spa pool and the hot water in the master bedroom. Obviously, the rent paid by the tenants includes a portion for the use of those facilities.
They said that during a period of 4 weeks they could not use the spa or the hot water in the master bedroom for half of the time.
The landlord said that they were first told of the problem by the tenants on 22 August 2022. On 31 August 2022 they were then advised by the tenants that the issue had been fixed.
On 15 September 2022 the tenants again advised that the spa was not working. An electrician was sent on 16 September 2022 and the issue was fixed.
A landlord can only be held liable in these circumstances for a loss of amenity where they are told by the tenant about the issue. In this matter, I find that there has been a brief loss of amenity. I find that the loss of amenity during the period where the landlord was aware of the issue amounts at most to 1 week. The loss of enmity of the spa and hot water in the master bedroom I find to be $200.00. Firewood.
It was a term of the tenancy agreement between the parties that the landlord provides firewood at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenants say that there was a large stack of wood (seemingly far more than 9 cubic metres) at the premises. The wood had been placed both within a covered shed and stacked on the outside of the shed.
The tenants say that after 2 or 3 weeks of living at the premises, the stack collapsed. They say that whilst the wood that could be seen on the outside of the pile was neatly stacked, the wood behind that was simply loaded up in a random fashion.
The tenants say that they are not sure how the wood pile collapsed but suggest that it was due to poor stacking by the landlord or the landlord’s contractors.
They say that they stacked the wood and seek compensation of $450.00 being 3 hours of their labour at $150.00 per hour. The tenant carrying out the stacking is a qualified arborist and has used his charge out rate as a basis for the charge.
The landlord said that they were advised by the tenants of the problem with the wood pile on 5 September 2022. Subsequent discussions between the parties seem somewhat vague.
The discussions resulted in the landlord advising the tenants on 7 September 2022 that they would arrange for a contractor to come and stack the wood next week. The tenant told the landlord not to come as they didn’t accept liability for the cost of restacking.
On 14 September 2022, the tenants were told that a contractor would be there within 24-48 hours to restack the wood.
On 15 September 2022, the contractor arrived and discovered the tenant restacking the wood. The contractor left.
The landlord was invoiced by the contractor for his time.
The tenants said that they had not been told who was to pay for the contractor and rather than be liable for his costs, they decided to do the work themselves and invoice the landlord for it.
At no time has the landlord agreed that the tenants would stack the wood and that he would be liable for it, nor were the tenants told that they would be liable for it. This caused the subsequent confusion between the parties.
In the circumstances, the work having been carried out, the landlord has incurred a cost in having a contractor. I order that the tenant is entitled to charge for their labour at $30.00 per hour. That would bring the claim total to $90.00. I have deducted $40.00 from that sum as part compensation to the landlord for the costs incurred. The landlord is ordered to pay $50.00 to the tenant.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. I consider that both parties have been successful to an extent. There is little public interest in the details of the parties. I order suppression for both landlord and tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4451860 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4451860 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions