What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4512630?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4512630?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,043.81 awarded to landlord; Unblock Toilet: $488.75 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $219.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4512630?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4512630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9419702-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4512630?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4512630?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,043.81 awarded to landlord; Unblock Toilet: $488.75 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $219.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4512630?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4512630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9419702-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31A Hamilton Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4512630 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4512630. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears until 18/03/2023	$1,043.81	Rent arrears until 18/03/2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Unblock toilet	$488.75	Unblock toilet
Water rates	$219.40	Water rates

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remainder of the bond of $347.60 (originally ordered to be paid to the tenant but which hasn’t yet been released) (5112115- 009) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Sandrine Ramassot: $28.75 Dereny Tufuga and Seremaia Troon: $318.85

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Today’s hearing was a rehearing of an application originally heard on 6 June 2023. On that date an order was issued allocating costs as follows: DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears until 18/03/2023$1,043.81 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Unblock toilet$488.75 Water rates$219.40 Total award$1,772.40 Bond$1,772.40$347.60

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 18 th March 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy for rent was $1043.81, and for water rates $219.40. Ms Tufuga accepted these amounts.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided an invoice from X-Press Facilities Services Limited for $517.50 and photographs that showed the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy. Ms Tufuga accepted this evidence and the liability for the payment of the cleaning costs.
The amounts ordered are proven.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord has provided an invoice for $488.75 dated 22.01.2023 for unblocking the toilet. The invoice states the cause of the blockage as being “baby wipes.”
Ms Tufuga disputed liability for the blocked toilet saying that her family did not use baby wipes and did not put any baby wipes into the toilet system.
Ms Tufuga stated that there was a problem with the toilet and bathroom plumbing that lasted for the entirety of the tenancy. The tenancy began on 2 February 2022 and three weeks after first moving in, Ms Tufuga emailed Barfoot and Thompson about the problem with the toilet not flushing effectively. The plumber advised to use a different toilet paper. After changing toilet paper and the problem continuing, Ms Tufuga’s family resorted to using a bucket of water to assist the flush of the toilet. She stated that having to use a bucket of water was embarrassing when friends and family visited. Following more complaints to Barfoot and Thompson another plumber attended in November 2022 and changed the toilet seat and pan connector. The problem persisted. Another plumber attended in January 2023 and cleared a blockage by hydrojet. This was the plumber that advised the blockage was caused by wet wipes, and charged the invoice that is the subject of this claim.
At today’s hearing the landlord advised that she picked up wet wipes from garden of the property and she pointed to what she said were wet wipes in photos of the garden provided to the Tribunal. Ms Tufuga said that the “wet wipes” were actually paper planes that her children and husband had left in the garden and she reiterated that her family did not use wet wipes. The photos are not clear enough to be definitive.
If it would have been possible to see the blockage cleared by hydrojet in a photograph this would have provided clear evidence of the causation of the blockage. In the absence of such information I am not persuaded that the blockage of the toilet was caused by wet wipes. This is because I found Ms Tufuga to be reliable and honest and her information to be credible. I believe it would be unlikely she would have continued to behave in a way that caused her and her family inconvenience and embarrassment given that this could have been easily avoided. Even if they are wet wipes in the photographs of the garden, that is not to say that wet wipes were the cause of the blockage in the bathroom.
The application for plumbing costs is dismissed.
Following a telephone call to the Bond Centre today, the Tribunal confirmed that the portion of the bond granted in the original order to the landlord ($1772.40) has been released, and the portion of the bond granted in the original order to the tenant ($347.60) has not been released.
The difference between the original order and this order is limited to two areas: a. The claim for plumbing costs ($488.75) which was originally awarded, is now dismissed; and b. The claim for cleaning costs ($517.50) which was originally dismissed is now ordered.
The difference between these two amounts is $28.75 in favour of the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4512630. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears until 18/03/2023	$1,043.81	Rent arrears until 18/03/2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Unblock toilet	$488.75	Unblock toilet
Water rates	$219.40	Water rates

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remainder of the bond of $347.60 (originally ordered to be paid to the tenant but which hasn’t yet been released) (5112115- 009) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Sandrine Ramassot: $28.75 Dereny Tufuga and Seremaia Troon: $318.85

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Today’s hearing was a rehearing of an application originally heard on 6 June 2023. On that date an order was issued allocating costs as follows: DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears until 18/03/2023$1,043.81 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Unblock toilet$488.75 Water rates$219.40 Total award$1,772.40 Bond$1,772.40$347.60

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 18 th March 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy for rent was $1043.81, and for water rates $219.40. Ms Tufuga accepted these amounts.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided an invoice from X-Press Facilities Services Limited for $517.50 and photographs that showed the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy. Ms Tufuga accepted this evidence and the liability for the payment of the cleaning costs.
The amounts ordered are proven.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord has provided an invoice for $488.75 dated 22.01.2023 for unblocking the toilet. The invoice states the cause of the blockage as being “baby wipes.”
Ms Tufuga disputed liability for the blocked toilet saying that her family did not use baby wipes and did not put any baby wipes into the toilet system.
Ms Tufuga stated that there was a problem with the toilet and bathroom plumbing that lasted for the entirety of the tenancy. The tenancy began on 2 February 2022 and three weeks after first moving in, Ms Tufuga emailed Barfoot and Thompson about the problem with the toilet not flushing effectively. The plumber advised to use a different toilet paper. After changing toilet paper and the problem continuing, Ms Tufuga’s family resorted to using a bucket of water to assist the flush of the toilet. She stated that having to use a bucket of water was embarrassing when friends and family visited. Following more complaints to Barfoot and Thompson another plumber attended in November 2022 and changed the toilet seat and pan connector. The problem persisted. Another plumber attended in January 2023 and cleared a blockage by hydrojet. This was the plumber that advised the blockage was caused by wet wipes, and charged the invoice that is the subject of this claim.
At today’s hearing the landlord advised that she picked up wet wipes from garden of the property and she pointed to what she said were wet wipes in photos of the garden provided to the Tribunal. Ms Tufuga said that the “wet wipes” were actually paper planes that her children and husband had left in the garden and she reiterated that her family did not use wet wipes. The photos are not clear enough to be definitive.
If it would have been possible to see the blockage cleared by hydrojet in a photograph this would have provided clear evidence of the causation of the blockage. In the absence of such information I am not persuaded that the blockage of the toilet was caused by wet wipes. This is because I found Ms Tufuga to be reliable and honest and her information to be credible. I believe it would be unlikely she would have continued to behave in a way that caused her and her family inconvenience and embarrassment given that this could have been easily avoided. Even if they are wet wipes in the photographs of the garden, that is not to say that wet wipes were the cause of the blockage in the bathroom.
The application for plumbing costs is dismissed.
Following a telephone call to the Bond Centre today, the Tribunal confirmed that the portion of the bond granted in the original order to the landlord ($1772.40) has been released, and the portion of the bond granted in the original order to the tenant ($347.60) has not been released.
The difference between the original order and this order is limited to two areas: a. The claim for plumbing costs ($488.75) which was originally awarded, is now dismissed; and b. The claim for cleaning costs ($517.50) which was originally dismissed is now ordered.
The difference between these two amounts is $28.75 in favour of the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4512630 — Rent arrears at 31A Hamilton Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4512630 — Rent arrears at 31A Hamilton Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions