Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4750233 — Leaks
Decided 29 Jan 2024 · Published 29 Jan 2024 · Application 4750233
- Leaks
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,725.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
- Benchmark Property Management Limited Gerhard Thomas must pay [The tenant/s] $618.68 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Regional Manager, Gerhard Thomas who attended in person and the tenants attended by teleconference.
- The tenants are seeking reimbursement of the bond and compensation for an alleged gas leak during the tenancy. Bond refund
- The tenant has applied for refund of their bond following the end of the tenancy.
- At the hearing the landlord made a claim against the bond. However, the landlord did not file an application with Tenancy Services.
- Section 22B RTA provides: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
- The requirement for the landlord to file a counterclaim is mandatory. Therefore, because the landlord has not done so, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. This does not prevent the landlord from filing a claim against the tenant at a later date. It just means that, if the landlord’s claim is successful, there is no bond to put towards any monetary award made. Compensation for gas charges
- The tenants seek compensation for what they say is excessive gas charges arising from a gas leak in 2022. The tenant seeks compensation of $1,490.76, to compensate for gas charges paid during 2022 that is above their average spend in 2023. The tenant provided a breakdown of their analysis.
- The tenants state that they started noticing that their gas invoice significantly increased from September 2022 and they couldn’t understand it. The tenants submit that they knew something was wrong when they went away for two weeks but the charges continued during that time. The tenant’s contacted the landlord in November 2022 due to the significant gas invoices and the landlord immediately sent a technician to inspect the gas services. The technician identified a leak in the hot water line to the laundry and disconnected it and the gas bill reverted to normal after that.
- The tenants submit that they requested compensation from the landlord in March 2023 but the landlord refused siting an electrical issue as the reason.
- The landlord submits that it responded immediately when the tenant’s complained of the issue. They reviewed the tenant’s gas invoices and considered that the increase was not considerable, and it is expected that it would increase over the winter months. The landlord referred to the invoice for the repair work which states that there was “no visible leak to report”.
- The question to be determined, is whether compensation can be ordered, to compensate for gas lost from a leak in the gas system.
- Based on the evidence available, I am satisfied that there was a leak in the hot water line to the laundry. Whilst the technicians report states that there was no visible leak, this is in relation to the taps and water outlets. The report goes on to refer to hot water lines being traced and the identification of the issue in the line to the laundry resulting in it being cut off. I consider this compelling evidence to show that there was a leak and that the tenant should be compensated accordingly. I have awarded the tenant’s compensation for the months September, October and November 2022, being $598.24. Filing fee
- Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
- Because the tenants have been wholly successful with their claim I have ordered suppression of their names and identifying details. T Lee-Lewis 17 January 2024