What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4777418 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4777418?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $129.99 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $6,380.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4777418?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4777418?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10716534-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4777418 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4777418?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $129.99 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $6,380.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4777418?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4777418?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10716534-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4777418 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4777418 — net $5,010.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 January 2024	$129.99		Rent arrears to 12 January 2024
Water rates	$6,380.08		3. At the date of the hearing, the landlord had only just filed his own application for rent and water rates arrears.
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$750.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$750.00	Failure to maintain
Total award	$6,510.07	$1,500.00
Net award	$5,010.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,010.07

Both parties attended the hearing, which was held remotely.

On 8 March 2024, the Tribunal made orders in favour of the tenant, awarding her exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond, failure to maintain and lack of smoke alarms. The adjudicator found, with respect to the smoke alarms, that the landlord was non-compliant because the property, being a two storeyed home, only had one smoke alarm.

At the date of the hearing, the landlord had only just filed his own application for rent and water rates arrears. That application was therefore not heard on that day.

The landlord applied for a rehearing of the order of 8 March on the basis he had new evidence that in fact the property had two smoke alarms.

The hearing today proceeded with the agreement of the parties that the only aspect of the decision that was challenged related to the smoke alarms. No fresh evidence was submitted with respect to the other aspects of the March order. The parties accept the prior orders, as now ordered above.

In this decision, I deal first with the tenant’s application with respect to the smoke alarms and then with the landlord’s application for rent and water arrears. The smoke alarms

Tenancies must have at least one working smoke alarm on each level of the home and have a smoke alarm within 3 metres of all bedrooms or sleeping spaces.

The tenant alleges this was not the case.

She claimed the only smoke alarm was upstairs. She produced no photographs to corroborate this allegation.

The landlord referred me to website material regarding the property which shows photographs of the interior. These can be found at propertyvalue.co.nz. The image was shared with the parties. The image shows the downstairs level and a smoke alarm can be seen clearly there.

The landlord submitted (as part of his application for a rehearing) a text exchange with the existing tenant, asking her to send him a photograph of the upstairs smoke alarm. A photograph of a smoke alarm was provided in response to that text.

The Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations regarding the burden of proof in claims before it. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. They must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.

This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.

I dismiss this aspect of the tenant’s claim because she has failed to prove that there was only one working smoke alarm. I accept the photo evindece provided by the landlord in this regard.

The claim that the smoke alarms were non-compliant is therefore dismissed. The landlord’s application for rent and water bills

The landlord says that he got notice that the tenant had vacated and wanted to end the tenancy for the first time on 15 December. This was not challenged by the tenant. He therefore calculates rent owing as at 28 days from that point (12 January).

A tenant wanting to vacate must give the requisite period of notice and I accept the landlord’s rental calculations on the basis the period of notice runs from 15 December 2023.

Regarding the water bills, on questioning from the landlord, he accepted that the fixed charge component needed to be deducted.

He accepts he may not have sent all of the bills to the tenant but says he gave up chasing these.

The tenant’s response is that she felt there were issues with the property that were not being attended to. She said in regard to the water, there was a leaking toilet and other plumbing issues which would have increased the water bills.

The water bills did not however seem excessive.

She accepted she had not complained to the landlord about the toilet and plumbing issues. The landlord said the first time he heard of the toilet issue was towards the end of the tenancy.

I am satisfied the landlord has proven his claim and the amounts ordered above are owing.

I am not prepared to reimburse either party their filing fee as each has had a measure of success.

For that reason, I order name suppression in favour of both parties. All other orders made by the previous adjudicator were not challenged and I am satisfied those claims were proven, as ordered above.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4777418 — net $5,010.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 January 2024	$129.99		Rent arrears to 12 January 2024
Water rates	$6,380.08		3. At the date of the hearing, the landlord had only just filed his own application for rent and water rates arrears.
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$750.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$750.00	Failure to maintain
Total award	$6,510.07	$1,500.00
Net award	$5,010.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,010.07

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names of both parties and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $5,010.07 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was held remotely.
On 8 March 2024, the Tribunal made orders in favour of the tenant, awarding her exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond, failure to maintain and lack of smoke alarms. The adjudicator found, with respect to the smoke alarms, that the landlord was non-compliant because the property, being a two storeyed home, only had one smoke alarm.
At the date of the hearing, the landlord had only just filed his own application for rent and water rates arrears. That application was therefore not heard on that day.
The landlord applied for a rehearing of the order of 8 March on the basis he had new evidence that in fact the property had two smoke alarms.
The hearing today proceeded with the agreement of the parties that the only aspect of the decision that was challenged related to the smoke alarms. No fresh evidence was submitted with respect to the other aspects of the March order. The parties accept the prior orders, as now ordered above.
In this decision, I deal first with the tenant’s application with respect to the smoke alarms and then with the landlord’s application for rent and water arrears. The smoke alarms
Tenancies must have at least one working smoke alarm on each level of the home and have a smoke alarm within 3 metres of all bedrooms or sleeping spaces.
The tenant alleges this was not the case.
She claimed the only smoke alarm was upstairs. She produced no photographs to corroborate this allegation.
The landlord referred me to website material regarding the property which shows photographs of the interior. These can be found at propertyvalue.co.nz. The image was shared with the parties. The image shows the downstairs level and a smoke alarm can be seen clearly there.
The landlord submitted (as part of his application for a rehearing) a text exchange with the existing tenant, asking her to send him a photograph of the upstairs smoke alarm. A photograph of a smoke alarm was provided in response to that text.
The Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations regarding the burden of proof in claims before it. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. They must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
I dismiss this aspect of the tenant’s claim because she has failed to prove that there was only one working smoke alarm. I accept the photo evindece provided by the landlord in this regard.
The claim that the smoke alarms were non-compliant is therefore dismissed. The landlord’s application for rent and water bills
The landlord says that he got notice that the tenant had vacated and wanted to end the tenancy for the first time on 15 December. This was not challenged by the tenant. He therefore calculates rent owing as at 28 days from that point (12 January).
A tenant wanting to vacate must give the requisite period of notice and I accept the landlord’s rental calculations on the basis the period of notice runs from 15 December 2023.
Regarding the water bills, on questioning from the landlord, he accepted that the fixed charge component needed to be deducted.
He accepts he may not have sent all of the bills to the tenant but says he gave up chasing these.
The tenant’s response is that she felt there were issues with the property that were not being attended to. She said in regard to the water, there was a leaking toilet and other plumbing issues which would have increased the water bills.
The water bills did not however seem excessive.
She accepted she had not complained to the landlord about the toilet and plumbing issues. The landlord said the first time he heard of the toilet issue was towards the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied the landlord has proven his claim and the amounts ordered above are owing.
I am not prepared to reimburse either party their filing fee as each has had a measure of success.
For that reason, I order name suppression in favour of both parties. All other orders made by the previous adjudicator were not challenged and I am satisfied those claims were proven, as ordered above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4777418 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4777418 — Rent arrears

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