What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4758718 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4758718?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758718?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758718?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10200950-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4758718 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4758718?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758718?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758718?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10200950-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1360A Moutere Highway, Upper Moutere, RD 1, Upper Tenancy Tribunal Case 4758718 — Leaks

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Smythe the applicant, Ms Motley the property manager and Mr Smith the owner attended the hearing. Pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) both Ms Motley and Mr Smith are collectively and individually the landlord 1 , which is what I will refer to them as in this decision.
Mr Smythe’s claim is that the landlord should be responsible for an invoice from ThinkWater incurred when the water tanks at the tenancy were cleaned in April 2022 just prior to the end of the tenancy.
The situation is that in April Mr Smythe was having issues with his water. After approximately five days of problems, he called a company called CWS to come and investigate. They did some work and allegedly told him to have the tanks 1 Section 2 cleaned otherwise the same thing would happen again. He therefore contacted ThinkWater who came and cleaned the tank. There was still a problem, so he called CWS back and they came and did some more work. He also arranged for the tanks to be filled twice. He says that he made it clear to all three trades that he was only the tenant and they needed to get authorisation from the landlord before they undertook the work.
The problem actually continued and was eventually resolved when the landlord’s plumber ascertained some time later that there was a leak.
Mr Smythe considers that the landlord should be responsible for the ThinkWater invoice for the following reasons: i. He had asked for things previously which had been ignored. ii. He needed the work done quickly. iii. He told the trades to get landlord authorisation first.
Ms Motley’s submission is that the landlord should not be responsible for the ThinkWater invoice because they were not told of the issue by Mr Smythe and were therefore given no opportunity to investigate and rectify the problem before he took matters into his own hands. They were only made aware of the steps Mr Smythe had taken when they received the invoices from CWS and ThinkWater some weeks later.
Mr Smith has paid for the tanks to be refilled and for the work that CWS did even though they did not instigate that work. They made those payments on the basis that the work did benefit the tanks and they did need to be filled although arguably had they been able to investigate earlier they may well have ascertained the actual issue more quickly which would have resolved the matter earlier and at less cost. It is also possible that the second lot of work by CWS would not have been needed had the tanks not been cleaned.
Ms Motley’s evidence is that when she spoke to CWS they said they did not tell Mr Smythe the tanks needed to be cleaned, they merely said it was a good opportunity to do so when they were empty. She has provided evidence from both CWS and ThinkWater that Mr Smythe gave them full permission from the owner to undertake the work.
Ms Motley submits that the landlord has acted exceptionally reasonably in this situation by paying several invoices that they did not incur and were not definitively needed. However, she says there is no actual evidence that the tanks needed cleaning and even had they, Mr Smith would have done the work himself as he usually does.
Mr Smythe, as applicant is required to establish his version of events to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Before I consider whether he has done that, I detail the law. The law
Section 40(1)(b) of the RTA is clear that a tenant must notify their landlord as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair.
Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA states that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45(1)(ca) of the RTA states that a landlord must provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water.
Section 45(1)(d) of the RTA states that a landlord must reimburse the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where: i. The problem is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent; and ii. the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so.
Clause 27 of the tenancy agreement states that: The tenant agrees to notify the Landlord as soon as possible after the discovery of any damage or the need for repairs. The Tenant shall not arrange for any maintenance or repairs without the landlord’s prior consent.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 of the RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Discussion
I do not find it established in evidence that there was a history of either Mr Smith or Ms Motley ignoring or overlooking maintenance requests by Mr Smythe. The evidence does not establish that they would have ignored or delayed an urgent request from Mr Smythe to fix the water problems.
This was not an emergency as Mr Smythe gave evidence that the issue had been ongoing for five days prior to his taking action.
Having assessed the evidence I am satisfied that he did tell CWS and ThinkWater that he was the tenant but did not specifically ask them to get authorisation from the landlord before they commenced the work. Regardless as to what he said to them, a tenant cannot delegate their responsibilities under the RTA.
Accordingly, having considered the situation very carefully and taking into account section 85, I do not find that the landlord should be responsible for the ThinkWater invoice. I have come to this conclusion primarily because Mr Smythe did not advise the landlord of the issue, in breach of the RTA. He arranged considerable and expensive work to be undertaken on the water tanks without permission, work that potentially was not necessary.
The landlord was responsible to ensure the water supply was functioning. However, they cannot be held liable for failing this responsibility when they were not made aware of a malfunction. They did attend to it when they were eventually advised, and I am satisfied have acted very reasonably in the circumstances.
Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
Mr Smythe has sought suppression, however as he was not successful in his claim, pursuant to section 85 of the RTA, I decline that application. The landlord does not seek suppression. Accordingly, no suppression orders are made.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Smythe the applicant, Ms Motley the property manager and Mr Smith the owner attended the hearing. Pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) both Ms Motley and Mr Smith are collectively and individually the landlord 1 , which is what I will refer to them as in this decision.
Mr Smythe’s claim is that the landlord should be responsible for an invoice from ThinkWater incurred when the water tanks at the tenancy were cleaned in April 2022 just prior to the end of the tenancy.
The situation is that in April Mr Smythe was having issues with his water. After approximately five days of problems, he called a company called CWS to come and investigate. They did some work and allegedly told him to have the tanks 1 Section 2 cleaned otherwise the same thing would happen again. He therefore contacted ThinkWater who came and cleaned the tank. There was still a problem, so he called CWS back and they came and did some more work. He also arranged for the tanks to be filled twice. He says that he made it clear to all three trades that he was only the tenant and they needed to get authorisation from the landlord before they undertook the work.
The problem actually continued and was eventually resolved when the landlord’s plumber ascertained some time later that there was a leak.
Mr Smythe considers that the landlord should be responsible for the ThinkWater invoice for the following reasons: i. He had asked for things previously which had been ignored. ii. He needed the work done quickly. iii. He told the trades to get landlord authorisation first.
Ms Motley’s submission is that the landlord should not be responsible for the ThinkWater invoice because they were not told of the issue by Mr Smythe and were therefore given no opportunity to investigate and rectify the problem before he took matters into his own hands. They were only made aware of the steps Mr Smythe had taken when they received the invoices from CWS and ThinkWater some weeks later.
Mr Smith has paid for the tanks to be refilled and for the work that CWS did even though they did not instigate that work. They made those payments on the basis that the work did benefit the tanks and they did need to be filled although arguably had they been able to investigate earlier they may well have ascertained the actual issue more quickly which would have resolved the matter earlier and at less cost. It is also possible that the second lot of work by CWS would not have been needed had the tanks not been cleaned.
Ms Motley’s evidence is that when she spoke to CWS they said they did not tell Mr Smythe the tanks needed to be cleaned, they merely said it was a good opportunity to do so when they were empty. She has provided evidence from both CWS and ThinkWater that Mr Smythe gave them full permission from the owner to undertake the work.
Ms Motley submits that the landlord has acted exceptionally reasonably in this situation by paying several invoices that they did not incur and were not definitively needed. However, she says there is no actual evidence that the tanks needed cleaning and even had they, Mr Smith would have done the work himself as he usually does.
Mr Smythe, as applicant is required to establish his version of events to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Before I consider whether he has done that, I detail the law. The law
Section 40(1)(b) of the RTA is clear that a tenant must notify their landlord as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair.
Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA states that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45(1)(ca) of the RTA states that a landlord must provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water.
Section 45(1)(d) of the RTA states that a landlord must reimburse the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where: i. The problem is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent; and ii. the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so.
Clause 27 of the tenancy agreement states that: The tenant agrees to notify the Landlord as soon as possible after the discovery of any damage or the need for repairs. The Tenant shall not arrange for any maintenance or repairs without the landlord’s prior consent.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 of the RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Discussion
I do not find it established in evidence that there was a history of either Mr Smith or Ms Motley ignoring or overlooking maintenance requests by Mr Smythe. The evidence does not establish that they would have ignored or delayed an urgent request from Mr Smythe to fix the water problems.
This was not an emergency as Mr Smythe gave evidence that the issue had been ongoing for five days prior to his taking action.
Having assessed the evidence I am satisfied that he did tell CWS and ThinkWater that he was the tenant but did not specifically ask them to get authorisation from the landlord before they commenced the work. Regardless as to what he said to them, a tenant cannot delegate their responsibilities under the RTA.
Accordingly, having considered the situation very carefully and taking into account section 85, I do not find that the landlord should be responsible for the ThinkWater invoice. I have come to this conclusion primarily because Mr Smythe did not advise the landlord of the issue, in breach of the RTA. He arranged considerable and expensive work to be undertaken on the water tanks without permission, work that potentially was not necessary.
The landlord was responsible to ensure the water supply was functioning. However, they cannot be held liable for failing this responsibility when they were not made aware of a malfunction. They did attend to it when they were eventually advised, and I am satisfied have acted very reasonably in the circumstances.
Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
Mr Smythe has sought suppression, however as he was not successful in his claim, pursuant to section 85 of the RTA, I decline that application. The landlord does not seek suppression. Accordingly, no suppression orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4758718 — Leaks at 1360A Moutere Highway, Upper Moutere, RD 1, Upper

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4758718 — Leaks at 1360A Moutere Highway, Upper Moutere, RD 1, Upper

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