How much money was awarded in case 4698431?

Services T/As Propertyscouts Whangar…: $1,020.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4698431?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4698431?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9861395-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4698431?

Services T/As Propertyscouts Whangar…: $1,020.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4698431?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4698431?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9861395-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

7 Pompallier Estate Drive, Maunu, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4698431 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4698431 about?

The tribunal order states: North Island Community Services t/as Propertyscouts Whangarei (as agent for

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4698431 — net $1,020.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Services t/as Propertyscouts Whangarei (as agent for the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland) is to pay [Th	$1,020.00	Services t/as Propertyscouts Whangarei (as agent for the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland) is to pay [Th
Net award	$1,020.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,020.00

North Island Community Services t/as Propertyscouts Whangarei (as agent for the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland) is to pay [The tenant/s] $1,020.00 immediately, being compensation for tree removal work.

An application for name suppression was made and name suppression is granted to the tenant.

Reasons

The order dated 11 October 2023 sets out the background to the applications.

On 27 October 2023 [The tenant/s] filed a second application. The new application repeated the same issues that were set out in [The tenant/s]’s original application.

A second hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 19 January 2024. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Kelly and Ms de Beere represented the landlord.

Ms Kelly submitted that: a. They had the ceiling insulation by [insulation company]. [Insulation company] confirmed that there is insulation in the ceiling space comprised of glasswool batts with loose-fill insulation blown on tup. The depth ranges from 80mm-150mm, with 90-95% of the space above the (current) minimum 120mm depth. [Insulation company] recommended “an additional layer of insulation be installed to future proof any loss of thickness”. b. They obtained a quote for drainage works from [drainage company]. The quote is dated 13 December 2023. They have sent the quote to the owner and are waiting for approval of the quoted work.

[The tenant/s] was satisfied with the progress in respect of these issues.

It is noted that the landlord intends to do the insulation work before the start of winter.

The other issue is compensation for the tree removal work that [The tenant/s]’ husband carried out.

[The tenant/s] clarified that a large tree came down during Cyclone Gabrielle, and [Electricity company] felled three trees that were getting too close to power lines, leaving the felled trees on the property.

[The tenant/s] submitted that Ms Netto (her previous property manager) told her and her husband to remove the trees. Ms Kelly questioned whether Ms Netto would have said this, given that it is contrary to Propertyscouts’ policy in several respects, not least that it poses health and safety issues.

In any event, Propertyscouts accepts that [The tenant/s]’s husband did in fact do the work, and that he is entitled to reasonable compensation for it.

He provided an invoice for $2,000.00. Ms Kelly asked for further clarification of that invoice.

At the hearing [The tenant/s] submitted that they stood by their original invoice and did not see the need to issue a new one.

I was not provided with a copy of the invoice. I viewed it on [The tenant/s]’s phone at the hearing. The labour rate on the invoice is $200 per hour.

Ms Kelly submitted that the work could have been done by their maintenance man, who charges $45 per hour.

I agree that the work did not require an arborist, and it did not require specialist equipment other than a chainsaw. The trees were already on the ground. The work was to cut them up and tidy them into piles.

I will award $1,020.00 based on: a. 16 hours’ labour at $45 per hour. b. $200.00 for chainsaw hire. c. $100.00 for petrol and other consumables.

[The tenant/s] did not seek name suppression in her first application but she did in her second.

It is not inaccurate to state that [The tenant/s] has ‘substantially succeeded’ 1 in the proceedings, and therefore I will grant the request for name suppression.

No further hearings are required in respect of these applications.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4698431 — net $1,020.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Services t/as Propertyscouts Whangarei (as agent for the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland) is to pay [Th	$1,020.00	Services t/as Propertyscouts Whangarei (as agent for the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland) is to pay [Th
Net award	$1,020.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,020.00

Order

North Island Community Services t/as Propertyscouts Whangarei (as agent for the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland) is to pay [The tenant/s] $1,020.00 immediately, being compensation for tree removal work.
An application for name suppression was made and name suppression is granted to the tenant.

Reasons

The order dated 11 October 2023 sets out the background to the applications.
On 27 October 2023 [The tenant/s] filed a second application. The new application repeated the same issues that were set out in [The tenant/s]’s original application.
A second hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 19 January 2024. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Kelly and Ms de Beere represented the landlord.
Ms Kelly submitted that: a. They had the ceiling insulation by [insulation company]. [Insulation company] confirmed that there is insulation in the ceiling space comprised of glasswool batts with loose-fill insulation blown on tup. The depth ranges from 80mm-150mm, with 90-95% of the space above the (current) minimum 120mm depth. [Insulation company] recommended “an additional layer of insulation be installed to future proof any loss of thickness”. b. They obtained a quote for drainage works from [drainage company]. The quote is dated 13 December 2023. They have sent the quote to the owner and are waiting for approval of the quoted work.
[The tenant/s] was satisfied with the progress in respect of these issues.
It is noted that the landlord intends to do the insulation work before the start of winter.
The other issue is compensation for the tree removal work that [The tenant/s]’ husband carried out.
[The tenant/s] clarified that a large tree came down during Cyclone Gabrielle, and [Electricity company] felled three trees that were getting too close to power lines, leaving the felled trees on the property.
[The tenant/s] submitted that Ms Netto (her previous property manager) told her and her husband to remove the trees. Ms Kelly questioned whether Ms Netto would have said this, given that it is contrary to Propertyscouts’ policy in several respects, not least that it poses health and safety issues.
In any event, Propertyscouts accepts that [The tenant/s]’s husband did in fact do the work, and that he is entitled to reasonable compensation for it.
He provided an invoice for $2,000.00. Ms Kelly asked for further clarification of that invoice.
At the hearing [The tenant/s] submitted that they stood by their original invoice and did not see the need to issue a new one.
I was not provided with a copy of the invoice. I viewed it on [The tenant/s]’s phone at the hearing. The labour rate on the invoice is $200 per hour.
Ms Kelly submitted that the work could have been done by their maintenance man, who charges $45 per hour.
I agree that the work did not require an arborist, and it did not require specialist equipment other than a chainsaw. The trees were already on the ground. The work was to cut them up and tidy them into piles.
I will award $1,020.00 based on: a. 16 hours’ labour at $45 per hour. b. $200.00 for chainsaw hire. c. $100.00 for petrol and other consumables.
[The tenant/s] did not seek name suppression in her first application but she did in her second.
It is not inaccurate to state that [The tenant/s] has ‘substantially succeeded’ 1 in the proceedings, and therefore I will grant the request for name suppression.
No further hearings are required in respect of these applications.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4698431 — Tenancy dispute at 7 Pompallier Estate Drive, Maunu, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4698431 — Tenancy dispute at 7 Pompallier Estate Drive, Maunu, Whangarei 0110

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