What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4670689 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4670689?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4670689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9685517-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4670689 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4670689?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4670689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9685517-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 805, 38A Liverpool Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4670689 — Leaks

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord believes the tenant has been subletting the above unit, and is seeking an order preventing this.
The tenant is seeking: a. the refund of $1466.46 water bills from the period of 19 February 2023 until 21 June 2023, during which time he says the hot water cylinder was broken. b. $10,000 compensation for emotional harm and mental stress, and for being without hot water for two months. The landlord’s claims
Clause 20 of the Tenancy Agreement prohibits subletting of the premises.
The landlord found advertisements that the tenant had posted on-line for a flatmate. The landlord investigated the CCTV footage of the building, and seeing a person entering and exiting the tenant’s unit on a frequent and regular basis, formed the belief that the tenant had sublet the unit.
The tenant stated that he had tried to sublet the unit but hadn’t been successful. He said the person coming and going from the unit was a family member who had been staying with him.
No financial transaction records were presented by the landlord.
The landlord stated that he isn’t seeking termination of the tenancy but is seeking an order preventing the tenant from subletting the unit.
The application for an order prohibiting the subletting of the unit is declined. The tenant is already prohibited from subletting the unit by virtue of clause 20 of the Tenancy Agreement. If an order were issued to the same effect, this would place any enforcing agency in the same position that the Tenancy Tribunal is in today, which is to assess the quality of the landlord’s information or application. Such an order would not be easily enforceable, and the procedure would be incorrect. The tenant’s claims
The tenant did not provide any reliable corroborating information to support his claim that there had been a failure of the hot water cylinder over an extended period of time, and that this had resulted in a significant water leak which led to greater water bills.
The tenant’s information included information that there had been a water leak for different amounts of time, including for two months and for five months.
The landlord’s information regarding the failure of the hot water cylinder and the leaks, was supported by reliable information in the form of dated email correspondence and an invoice which gave no indication of not being genuine.
The dates regarding the water leak that the landlord provided were consistent with some of the tenant’s information; however, the tenant claimed the leak had continued after the date which the landlord’s information indicated the leak had been remedied.
The amounts that the tenant provided for his water bills, did not show any significant increase in water bills during the period he claimed there was a leak. The most expensive bill was after the period when the tenant claimed the water leak had been remedied. The information from the tenant shows that water usage was broadly consistent before, during and after the time he claimed there was a problem.
The costs for which the tenant is partially seeking $10,000.00, are not supported by any invoices.
Although the landlord’s claim that the tenant had sublet his apartment failed, the tenant accepted that he does have family members staying with him. This would realistically result in variation in water usage in any case.
This is a historic matter that happened over one year and eight months ago. Over time, memories distort what happened, and for this reason reliable written information is more important in older cases than more recent cases. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was a problem with the hot water cylinder that lasted for more than a few days which the landlord’s written records establish.
The tenant’s claims are not proven.

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord believes the tenant has been subletting the above unit, and is seeking an order preventing this.
The tenant is seeking: a. the refund of $1466.46 water bills from the period of 19 February 2023 until 21 June 2023, during which time he says the hot water cylinder was broken. b. $10,000 compensation for emotional harm and mental stress, and for being without hot water for two months. The landlord’s claims
Clause 20 of the Tenancy Agreement prohibits subletting of the premises.
The landlord found advertisements that the tenant had posted on-line for a flatmate. The landlord investigated the CCTV footage of the building, and seeing a person entering and exiting the tenant’s unit on a frequent and regular basis, formed the belief that the tenant had sublet the unit.
The tenant stated that he had tried to sublet the unit but hadn’t been successful. He said the person coming and going from the unit was a family member who had been staying with him.
No financial transaction records were presented by the landlord.
The landlord stated that he isn’t seeking termination of the tenancy but is seeking an order preventing the tenant from subletting the unit.
The application for an order prohibiting the subletting of the unit is declined. The tenant is already prohibited from subletting the unit by virtue of clause 20 of the Tenancy Agreement. If an order were issued to the same effect, this would place any enforcing agency in the same position that the Tenancy Tribunal is in today, which is to assess the quality of the landlord’s information or application. Such an order would not be easily enforceable, and the procedure would be incorrect. The tenant’s claims
The tenant did not provide any reliable corroborating information to support his claim that there had been a failure of the hot water cylinder over an extended period of time, and that this had resulted in a significant water leak which led to greater water bills.
The tenant’s information included information that there had been a water leak for different amounts of time, including for two months and for five months.
The landlord’s information regarding the failure of the hot water cylinder and the leaks, was supported by reliable information in the form of dated email correspondence and an invoice which gave no indication of not being genuine.
The dates regarding the water leak that the landlord provided were consistent with some of the tenant’s information; however, the tenant claimed the leak had continued after the date which the landlord’s information indicated the leak had been remedied.
The amounts that the tenant provided for his water bills, did not show any significant increase in water bills during the period he claimed there was a leak. The most expensive bill was after the period when the tenant claimed the water leak had been remedied. The information from the tenant shows that water usage was broadly consistent before, during and after the time he claimed there was a problem.
The costs for which the tenant is partially seeking $10,000.00, are not supported by any invoices.
Although the landlord’s claim that the tenant had sublet his apartment failed, the tenant accepted that he does have family members staying with him. This would realistically result in variation in water usage in any case.
This is a historic matter that happened over one year and eight months ago. Over time, memories distort what happened, and for this reason reliable written information is more important in older cases than more recent cases. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was a problem with the hot water cylinder that lasted for more than a few days which the landlord’s written records establish.
The tenant’s claims are not proven.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4670689 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 805, 38A Liverpool Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4670689 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 805, 38A Liverpool Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions