What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4652209 about?

The tribunal order states: It is declared that the tenant is entitled to a credit of $22.18 for water charges.

How much money was awarded in case 4652209?

Electricity Reconnection Fee: $192.50 awarded to tenant; Failure To Provide Written Tenancy A…: $50.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4652209?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4652209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9936138-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4652209 about?

The tribunal order states: It is declared that the tenant is entitled to a credit of $22.18 for water charges.

How much money was awarded in case 4652209?

Electricity Reconnection Fee: $192.50 awarded to tenant; Failure To Provide Written Tenancy A…: $50.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4652209?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4652209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9936138-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4652209 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4652209 — net $242.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Failure to provide written tenancy agreement	$50.00	Failure to provide written tenancy agreement
Electricity reconnection fee	$192.50	Electricity reconnection fee
Net award	$242.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$242.50

Both parties attended the hearing on 5 February 2023.

The landlord’s application was determined pursuant to an order dated 2 November 2023. This order determines the tenant’s cross-application.

The tenancy ran from 12 October 2022 to 9 November 2023 when it ended by agreement, as recorded in the Tribunal’s November 2023 order. Variation of tenancy agreement

The tenant submitted that the landlord did not provide a written variation of the tenancy agreement to reflect an agreement reached with the landlord on or about 28 July 2023. The tenant said the landlord withheld the variation despite knowing that MSD require proof of changes to a tenancy before making benefit redirection payments, causing the tenant to fall into arrears.

The co-tenant, [previous tenant], moved out on 1 August 2023. He informed the landlord of this on 4 August 2023.

On 6 September 2023 the landlord emailed the tenant, acknowledging the delay in providing a variation document removing [previous tenant] from the tenancy. The landlord pointed out that WINZ would not have stopped rent payments because [previous tenant] had vacated, and the delay in the variation should not have prevented the tenant from continuing to pay at least half the rent ($275.00). No rent had been paid by the tenant since 25 July 2023. The landlord proposed a course of action to remedy matters.

The contemporaneous evidence does not suggest the tenant thought she would only be liable for half the rent when the variation agreement was signed. On 8 August 2023 she said it had been agreed there would be a tenancy between herself and the landlord and requested a copy of the tenancy agreement. Therefore, the delay in providing a variation or a new tenancy agreement made no difference to her liability to pay the rent of $550.00 per week. As noted in the Tribunal’s order dated 2 November 2023, the tenant continued in occupation and was liable to pay the rent, even though the original joint tenancy with [previous tenant] had ended.

There is a handwritten note from WINZ dated 27 July 2023 stating that a rent redirection of $275.00 per week started on 2 November 2022 and had not stopped. The last payment of $275.00 had been paid on 26 July 2023. The landlord’s rent summary shows that payments were made regularly by the tenant up to and including 25 July 2023. There was then one further payment of $275.00 on 14 August 2023 (apparently, from [previous tenant]). While the WINZ note was accurate when it was written, the landlord’s rental summary shows that no further rent redirection payments were made.

The essence of the tenant’s complaint is that she incurred rent arrears, which WINZ has not paid, because the landlord did not provide a new tenancy agreement or a variation of the tenancy.

Section 13B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that every variation or renewal of a tenancy must be in writing and the landlord must provide a copy of the variation or renewal to the tenant before it is due to take effect. It is an unlawful act to fail to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenant before the tenancy commences (section 13 of the Act). The maximum award of exemplary damages that can be made is $750.00.

The Tribunal’s order dated 2 November 2023 reasoned that the joint tenancy with [previous tenant] ended on 1 September 2023 (at paragraphs [4]-[6]). In my view, there was then a new tenancy between the landlord and the tenant but, in breach of section 13, there was no signed tenancy agreement.

The Tribunal has not seen anything from WINZ explaining why the rent redirection stopped or confirming that WINZ needed to see the varied tenancy agreement before it would agree to redirect $550.00 per week. But that was the tenant’s evidence, which the landlord did not dispute in the correspondence, and plausibly, the lack of a tenancy agreement reflecting sole responsibility for the weekly rent may have prevented WINZ from processing an increased weekly rent redirection.

Even if WINZ is not willing to pay the arrears (again, the Tribunal has not been provided with anything from WINZ confirming this) there has not been any loss, given that the tenant wanted to continue living at the property as sole tenant and was liable for the full rent after [previous tenant] vacated. Viz-a-viz the landlord, the failure to sign a new tenancy agreement made no difference to the tenant’s liability for rent.

I award nominal damages of $50.00 to reflect the breach of section 13 of the Act. I am not satisfied that the landlord deliberately withheld a new tenancy agreement or variation, so exemplary damages are not appropriate. Rent in advance

The tenant submitted that the landlord required payment of rent before expiry of the period for which rent had already been paid. This was based on an agreed rent reduction of $50.00 for the first 4 weeks of the tenancy which had not been credited by the landlord. The tenant also said the landlord issued notices to remedy on 26 April 2023 and 26 July 2023 when rent was not in arrears.

In my view, this misunderstands section 23(1) of the Act. The landlord was not impermissibly requesting rent in advance but seeking to enforce rent believed to be in arrears. The 4-week rent reduction was accounted for in later rent summaries.

The notice to remedy dated 26 April 2023 said the last payments received were $275.00 on 18 April 2023 and $275.00 on 21 April 2023. The rent summary dated 2 November 2023 shows that a payment of $275.00 on 24 April 2023 put the rent into credit. Rent was not paid in advance for the week commencing 26 April 2023. Payments of $275.00 were received on 1 and 2 May 2023 during the course of that rent week. I conclude that the notice to remedy did not accurately state the amount of arrears.

The notice to remedy on 26 July 2023 said the last payment received was $550.00 on 19 July 2023. The rent summary shows that $275.00 was paid on 19 July 2023, 24 July 2023, and 25 July 2023, which left the rent slightly in credit. The next week’s rent in advance, due on 26 July 2023, was not paid. Again, based on the latest available rent summary, the notice to remedy was inaccurate. Even so, in my view the two notices do not amount to a significant interference with the tenant’s use of the property. Records

The tenant submitted that the landlord had not kept proper records which caused 14-day notices to remedy to be issued without grounds. The tenant noted that the landlord’s ledger recorded payment of the bond on 11 October 2023. This contradicted a letter from Tenancy Services recording lodgement of the bond on 28 November 2023. The tenant also pointed to usage readings in the water bill for April 2023 that were incorrect.

Section 30 of the Act requires the landlord to keep proper business records relating to payment of rent and payment of the bond. There may have been discrepancies in the records, as asserted by the tenant, but such discrepancies potentially gave rise to other remedies under the Act. I am satisfied that the landlord complied with section 30. Water charges and levies

The tenant submitted that the landlord had incorrectly held the tenant liable for water charges above the supplier’s published volumetric amounts (i.e., fees). It was also submitted that the landlord charged body corporate levies to the tenant.

The tenancy agreement provided an initial water meter reading of 3.153kL on 13 October 2022, but a water invoice dated 12 April 2023 charged the tenant for use from 0kL to 2.7kL for the period 2 November 2022 to 10 April 2023. The invoice included usage of $15.54 and a fixed charge of $0.23. The landlord’s ledger dated 2 November 2023 noted this as “charged incorrectly” and credited $345.99. However, the ledger seems to indicate that this amount was then recharged and there is a further invoice dated 14 June 2023 for the period 2 November 2022 to 29 May 2023 totalling $345.99 ($330.22 + $15.77).

The tenant produced her own calculations of water use based on water readings and pricing information from Watercare. This establishes that water charges from 2 November 2022 to 29 May 2023 totalled $304.94. I therefore declare that the tenant should be credited for water usage charges of $21.95 ($330.22 - $304.94) and $0.23 for fixed charges against any water charges still owed (a total credit of $22.18). Application for termination without grounds

The tenant submitted that the landlord acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds when it applied to the Tribunal on 24 August 2023. It was said that notices of rent arrears pursuant to section 55(1)(aa) of the Act were issued on 1 August 2023 when the rent was not 5 working days in arrears, and that a third notice of rent arrears was issued on 17 August 2023, despite the tenant not having received a second notice.

The landlord’s rent summary from the start of the tenancy to 2 November 2023 shows rent arrears of $1,725.00 on 22 August 2023. The landlord applied for termination on the basis that the rent was at least 21 days in arrears on 24 August 2023. I find that there were grounds for an application for termination for rent arrears, whether or not the section 55(1)(aa) notices were valid. Dishwasher

The tenant submitted that the landlord failed to maintain the property because the dishwasher was in disrepair for 2 months. The tenant said the landlord was notified of the issue on 26 June 2023. On 18 September 2023 the tenant emailed saying the dishwasher was working.

The landlord said they were notified of an issue with the dishwasher and sent a tradesperson (there was an email from the landlord to the tenant on 26 June 2023 providing the contact details for this person). They did not hear anything more until they were notified by the tenant on 1 September 2023 that the dishwasher was leaking again.

I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to remedy the issue with the dishwasher in a reasonable time. Electricity connection

The tenant said there was no electricity connected at the start of the tenancy and she had to pay a reconnection fee of $192.50.

I consider that residential premises should be connected to essential utilities such as electricity and water at the start of a tenancy, even though it is the tenant’s obligation to open an account with a supplier. I consider that a reconnection fee is a cost that falls on the landlord, as an outgoing that is incurred whether or not the premises are occupied, pursuant to section 39 of the Act. I award the reconnection fee. Bond lodgement

The tenant submitted that the landlord failed to lodge the bond in accordance with statutory requirements. The tenant referred to a letter from Tenancy Services recording that the bond was paid by direct credit on 28 November 2023.

The landlord’s records show that the bond was received on 11 October 2022 and was paid to the Bond Centre on 31 October 2022, which is within 23 working days of payment by the tenant as required by section 19 of the Act. It is not possible to reconcile the Tenancy Services letter and the landlord’s records. It is not established that the landlord failed to lodge the bond within 23 working days of receipt. Unlawful entry

The tenant said that the landlord’s agent entered the premises without notice during the week of 26 October 2023. The tenant’s explanation of this incident lacked clarity. The property manager was apparently outside and called out to the tenant when he saw her. This gave her a fright. He was there to tell her the rent redirection had not gone through. The landlord did not enter the property and there was no unlawful entry.

The tenant also referred to an incident on 30 June 2023, when a tradesman arrived without notice to fix the floor, which did not need repairs. It is not clear why the tradesman went to the property. The incident does not warrant the Tribunal’s intervention. Quiet enjoyment

The tenant submitted that the landlord made negligent claims regarding rent arrears due to inaccuracies in their internal records on at least 2 occasions. This resulted in a loss of quiet enjoyment and caused the tenant anxiety. Exemplary damages were claimed for harassment.

The file does indicate that there were some administrative errors, for example, incorrect water charges and overlooking the rent reduction for the first 4 weeks. The notices to remedy in April and July 2023 appear to have been in error. However, I am not satisfied that the tenant’s use of the premises was so seriously affected by these mistakes that it amounted to a breach of quiet enjoyment. The errors are no more than the kinds of oversights that can occur when a residential property is being managed, even by a professional management company.

The mistakes were not deliberate, there is no pattern or repetition of the same errors, and the landlord’s actions do not constitute harassment. Discrimination

The tenant submitted that the landlord discriminated against her on grounds of her work status. The tenant said the landlord was aware that MSD policy required sight of any variation of the tenancy before actioning a rent redirection. The tenant submitted that the landlord had discriminated against her by not responding to requests for a variation of the tenancy. This purposefully put the tenant into a situation where her tenancy was at risk.

A landlord must not discriminate against any person in respect of the grant, variation, extension, or renewal of a tenancy agreement in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993. A prohibited ground of discrimination includes a person’s employment status, including being a beneficiary.

Discrimination has been described as less favourable treatment based on prohibited grounds relating to personal characteristics of an individual or group, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations, or disadvantages on that individual or group that are not imposed on others.

The landlord did not treat the tenant differently from any other tenant in the same circumstances. The failure to provide a new or varied tenancy agreement did not have different consequences for the tenant, as a beneficiary, than it would have for a person in employment. Whether the variation agreement was provided or not, the tenant was liable to pay the rent from her benefits. The evidence does not suggest the landlord had a practice of only requiring variation agreements for beneficiaries. I am not satisfied that the tenant was discriminated against by reason of her status as a beneficiary. Filing fee and name suppression

Both parties had some success in terms of their respective applications. It is appropriate that they bear their own costs.

The order of 2 November 2023 granted both parties interim suppression. Both have had some success. I grant suppression to both parties pursuant to section 95A(4) of the Act.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4652209 — net $242.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Failure to provide written tenancy agreement	$50.00	Failure to provide written tenancy agreement
Electricity reconnection fee	$192.50	Electricity reconnection fee
Net award	$242.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$242.50