What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4823797 about?

The tribunal order states: Sheng Yin Kai and Tony Liu must pay [The tenant] $1,176.54 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4823797?

Compensation: (Rebate for toilet lea…: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (Reimbursement of fixe…: $525.18 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; For Period 2017 To 2020: $31.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Overpayment For Period 19 To 21…: $424.29 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $37.81 awarded to landlord; Witness Fee For Mr Matchitt (As Per…: $153.44 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4823797?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10568957-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4823797 about?

The tribunal order states: Sheng Yin Kai and Tony Liu must pay [The tenant] $1,176.54 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4823797?

Compensation: (Rebate for toilet lea…: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (Reimbursement of fixe…: $525.18 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; For Period 2017 To 2020: $31.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Overpayment For Period 19 To 21…: $424.29 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $37.81 awarded to landlord; Witness Fee For Mr Matchitt (As Per…: $153.44 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4823797?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10568957-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4823797 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4823797 — net $1,176.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates: (February 2024	$37.81		7. The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation for replacement of damaged carpet in the dining room and sleep out, refund of the bond, and r…
Rent overpayment for period 19 to 21/02/24		$424.29	Rent overpayment for period 19 to 21/02/24
Compensation: (Reimbursement of fixed water charges		$525.18	(Reimbursement of fixed water charges
for period 2017 to 2020		$31.00	for period 2017 to 2020
Compensation: (Rebate for toilet leak Jan 2022		$60.00	(Rebate for toilet leak Jan 2022
Witness fee for Mr Matchitt (as per the Witness and		$153.44	Witness fee for Mr Matchitt (as per the Witness and
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$37.81	$1,214.35
Net award		$1,176.54
Bond		$3,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,176.54

Order

Sheng Yin Kai and Tony Liu must pay [The tenant] $1,176.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Tony Liu was the appointed representative of the landlord. He attended the hearing until around 11:40am and then stated he needed to leave to look after his children, even though the notice of hearing clearly stated the hearing was set down from 9:30am to 1pm. He stated Ms Kai was the landlord, he was only helping her out and she could finish the hearing herself.
Sheng Yin Kai was in Taiwan and attended the hearing via Mr Liu’s mobile phone until he left, at which time she briefly called into the hearing room before abruptly hanging up saying the international phone charges made it to expensive for her to continue to attend the hearing remotely. Mr Liu offered to leave his mobile phone but I did not want to accept responsibility for his asset.
I made it clear to Mr Liu and Ms Kai that if Mr Liu left the hearing early and Ms kai refused to attend remotely by calling into the hearing room then I would finish the hearing without them being present and their failure to attend the hearing would not be a grounds for a rehearing application.
The tenant stated he was unclear what Mr Liu’s role in his tenancy was supposed to be as the property was under a property management company when he agreed to rent it and he paid bond to that property management company. When he received the tenancy agreement it was with Ms Kai directly and the tenancy agreement makes no mention of whether Ms Kai has appointed a New Zealand based agent to manage her property, nor does it contain an agent’s name, contact address or address for service.
It appears that Ms Kai has not appointed an agent to manage the property, even though she is clearly living outside of New Zealand for periods greater than 21 consecutive days. Section 16A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states the landlord must have an agent if out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days and must notify the tenant of the agent’s name, contact address, and address for service. Failure to do so is a breach of the RTA and an unlawful act
The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation for replacement of damaged carpet in the dining room and sleep out, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant made a cross application for refund of rent overpayment of 3 days, refund of the fixed water charges he was unlawfully charged between 2017 and 2020 by the landlord and never reimbursed for, compensation for excess water use due to a toilet leak and a leaky external pipe between the road and the house, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 18 February 2024. The landlord provided a water rates invoice which proves the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the tenant caused stain damage to the dining room carpet and burn damage to the sleep out carpet during the tenancy.
The landlord provided two quotes. The first was for $1,840.00 for the installation of carpet in the sleep out and the second was for $3,945.08 for installation of new carpet in the lounge, dining room and entrance stairs.
Despite me repeatedly asking for the invoice to prove the amounts claimed, the landlord did not provide either invoice.
The landlord provided an entry inspection checklist that does not make note of any stains on the carpets in either the dining room or sleepout. It does note that there were stains on the carpet in the lounge and entranceway. The landlord relied solely on this entry inspection report to support her claims for compensation to replace the carpet in these two areas.
The landlord confirmed she had insurance, but stated the excess was $3,000.00 per claim. This made it uneconomic to make a claim on her insurance for repair of the carpet damage, especially since there would have been significant depreciation for carpet that was 11 years old.
The landlord did not provide any entry inspection photographs of either the dining room or sleepout carpet nor did she provide any photographs of the dining room stain she was claiming $3,945.08 to remedy. I repeatedly asked for this evidence to support the landlord’s claim and was never provided it. The landlord stated it was unreasonable of me to require entry inspection photographs as that was “a long time ago” and she” had changed phones since then and lost any photographs. Mr Liu said he had photographs of the dining stain at the end of the tenancy but did not produce that image.
[Tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] attended the hearing under a witness summons and gave evidence that he rented the sleep out from the prior tenant and then for this tenant. He stated that when he started to rent the sleepout the room had a large grey rug that covered most of the floor area and specifically covered the carpet area the landlord claims was burnt during [tenant’s name suppressed] tenancy. The landlord provided a photograph of the carpet burn in the sleep out taken after [tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] had moved out. Mr Liu also stated the two carpet technician’s he got to quote for repairing the sleepout carpet stated the stain was in fact a burn mark.
{Tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] says the rug was never lifted during the period he rented the sleepout from early July 2016 to 18 February 2024. He knew nothing about the carpet burn and says it could not have occurred while he rented the sleepout and must have been present in 2016 when he first became the previous tenant’s flatmate.
The tenant could not talk to the alleged stain in the dining room that is the subject of the landlord’s second carpet claim as the landlord failed to produce any photographic evidence of the stain, either at the time of the entry inspection or at the exit inspection. I also note there have been no routine property inspection reports provided to the Tribunal for the duration of the tenancy that could have possibility also been a source of evidence available to the landlord. The tenant claims there has been no property inspections and that occasionally Mr Liu popped in for a cup of tea and left again but did not inspect anything, nor did he complete a property inspection report.
The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove her claims for compensation for replacing the 11-year-old carpet in these two areas of the rental premise. Therefore, her claims are dismissed. [Tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] has also disproved the tenant’s liability for the carpet damage in the sleep out with his oral evidence, his written witness statement and photographs of the sleepout when he rented it in July 2016 that shows the rug covering that section of the carpet and furnishings being placed over the rug.
The landlord made much of [tenant’s name suppressed] renting the sleepout to [tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] and not passing the rent to her that he received from his flatmate. [Tenant’s name suppressed] is the only tenant on the tenancy agreement and he was free to have a flatmate in the sleep out and to collect rent from his flatmate. He rented the entire premise from the landlord, and she received the agreed weekly rent from him. The sleep out is not a consented second dwelling that can be rented out separately. Therefore, the landlord had no right to the rent paid to [tenant’s name suppressed] by his flatmate and whether or not [tenant’s name suppressed] is responsible for the carpet damage in the sleepout also has nothing to do with who he had in that area of the premise as a flatmate. If the landlord had established the tenant had liability for the sleepout carpet stain, which she did not, the tenant would be held liable for this damage and not his flatmate. He could pursue his flatmate in the Dispute’s Tribunal for recovery of any such damages awarded against him for damage done by his flatmate. Witness fees and travel costs
The landlord had [tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] summons to appear at the Tribunal today. He arrived at 10am and waited to be brought into the hearing room.
[Tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] gave evidence to the Tribunal orally and in a witness statement and produced photographs of how the sleepout looked when he rented it.
As per the witness summons, [tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] is entitled to witness fees and travel costs to and from Devonport to attend the hearing in accordance with the Witness and Interpreters Regulations 1974. I have awarded the witness fee and travel costs to the tenant who [tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] and [tenant’s name suppressed] have confirmed to me will be paid by [tenant’s name suppressed] to [tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] when he receives the monies from the landlord.
The $153.44 awarded consists of $116.00 witness fee and $37.44 travel costs at the IRD mileage rate of $1.04 per km for 36 kms to and From Devonport to Northshore District Court. TENANT’S CLAIMS Overpayment of rent
The landlord accepted the tenant overpaid rent by 3 days at the end of the tenancy and agreed to refund him the $424.29 rent overpayment. Unlawful charging of fixed water rate charges
The landlord accepted she had unlawfully charged the tenant the fixed water charges totalling $525.18 for the period November 2017 to December 2020 and agreed to refund him the overpayment.
The tenant says the landlord had agreed to repay this money, taken unlawfully from him back in 2020, but has never done so. Further, the tenant says she agreed to refund this money during mediation and again did not. Water leaks
The tenant provided evidence that WaterCare fixed a leaking pipe that went from the road to the house on 2 June 2023. Water had been running all over the road since 27 May 2023 but WaterCare indicated to the tenant the leak had been ongoing for a while.
The tenant produced water rates bills that show an increase in water consumption and charges for that period of approximately $31.00. The landlord says she did not approach WaterCare for a water rebate when it was open to her to do so and pass this rebate on to the tenant. I award the tenant the $31.00 rebate of his water rates that he paid as a result of this leak.
The tenant also produced evidence that the toilet was leaking in January 2021 and he fixed it himself after the landlord failed to do so. He has proven that his water bill went up by $60.00 for the month the toilet had been leaking and that the bills reduced down again after the toilet leak was fixed. I award the $60.00 compensation sought by the tenant for additional water charges he should not have had to pay for due to the toilet leak. Tenant’s time and mileage to attend the hearing
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award tenants for the time and costs associated with attending the Tribunal hearing. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms the Tribunal may award reimbursement of the application fee where a party is wholly or substantially successful in its claims.
Because [tenant’s name suppressed] has wholly succeeded with his claims I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because Sheng Yin Kai, Tony Liu have not wholly or substantially succeeded with their claims I cannot reimburse the filing fee and dismiss their claim for reimbursement accordingly. Name suppression
The landlord and the tenant have applied for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (See s95A of the RTA).
The tenant has wholly succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication of the tenant’s name is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details are ordered.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct.
Non-publication of the landlord’s name and identifying details is not ordered and the landlord’s claim for name suppression is dismissed. It is in the interest of the public to be able to identify a landlord that conducts itself in such an unlawful manner so as to be warned about the potential future risks of renting a property from this landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4823797 — net $1,176.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates: (February 2024	$37.81		7. The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation for replacement of damaged carpet in the dining room and sleep out, refund of the bond, and r…
Rent overpayment for period 19 to 21/02/24		$424.29	Rent overpayment for period 19 to 21/02/24
Compensation: (Reimbursement of fixed water charges		$525.18	(Reimbursement of fixed water charges
for period 2017 to 2020		$31.00	for period 2017 to 2020
Compensation: (Rebate for toilet leak Jan 2022		$60.00	(Rebate for toilet leak Jan 2022
Witness fee for Mr Matchitt (as per the Witness and		$153.44	Witness fee for Mr Matchitt (as per the Witness and
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$37.81	$1,214.35
Net award		$1,176.54
Bond		$3,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,176.54

Order

Sheng Yin Kai and Tony Liu must pay [The tenant] $1,176.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Tony Liu was the appointed representative of the landlord. He attended the hearing until around 11:40am and then stated he needed to leave to look after his children, even though the notice of hearing clearly stated the hearing was set down from 9:30am to 1pm. He stated Ms Kai was the landlord, he was only helping her out and she could finish the hearing herself.
Sheng Yin Kai was in Taiwan and attended the hearing via Mr Liu’s mobile phone until he left, at which time she briefly called into the hearing room before abruptly hanging up saying the international phone charges made it to expensive for her to continue to attend the hearing remotely. Mr Liu offered to leave his mobile phone but I did not want to accept responsibility for his asset.
I made it clear to Mr Liu and Ms Kai that if Mr Liu left the hearing early and Ms kai refused to attend remotely by calling into the hearing room then I would finish the hearing without them being present and their failure to attend the hearing would not be a grounds for a rehearing application.
The tenant stated he was unclear what Mr Liu’s role in his tenancy was supposed to be as the property was under a property management company when he agreed to rent it and he paid bond to that property management company. When he received the tenancy agreement it was with Ms Kai directly and the tenancy agreement makes no mention of whether Ms Kai has appointed a New Zealand based agent to manage her property, nor does it contain an agent’s name, contact address or address for service.
It appears that Ms Kai has not appointed an agent to manage the property, even though she is clearly living outside of New Zealand for periods greater than 21 consecutive days. Section 16A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states the landlord must have an agent if out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days and must notify the tenant of the agent’s name, contact address, and address for service. Failure to do so is a breach of the RTA and an unlawful act
The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation for replacement of damaged carpet in the dining room and sleep out, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant made a cross application for refund of rent overpayment of 3 days, refund of the fixed water charges he was unlawfully charged between 2017 and 2020 by the landlord and never reimbursed for, compensation for excess water use due to a toilet leak and a leaky external pipe between the road and the house, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 18 February 2024. The landlord provided a water rates invoice which proves the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the tenant caused stain damage to the dining room carpet and burn damage to the sleep out carpet during the tenancy.
The landlord provided two quotes. The first was for $1,840.00 for the installation of carpet in the sleep out and the second was for $3,945.08 for installation of new carpet in the lounge, dining room and entrance stairs.
Despite me repeatedly asking for the invoice to prove the amounts claimed, the landlord did not provide either invoice.
The landlord provided an entry inspection checklist that does not make note of any stains on the carpets in either the dining room or sleepout. It does note that there were stains on the carpet in the lounge and entranceway. The landlord relied solely on this entry inspection report to support her claims for compensation to replace the carpet in these two areas.
The landlord confirmed she had insurance, but stated the excess was $3,000.00 per claim. This made it uneconomic to make a claim on her insurance for repair of the carpet damage, especially since there would have been significant depreciation for carpet that was 11 years old.
The landlord did not provide any entry inspection photographs of either the dining room or sleepout carpet nor did she provide any photographs of the dining room stain she was claiming $3,945.08 to remedy. I repeatedly asked for this evidence to support the landlord’s claim and was never provided it. The landlord stated it was unreasonable of me to require entry inspection photographs as that was “a long time ago” and she” had changed phones since then and lost any photographs. Mr Liu said he had photographs of the dining stain at the end of the tenancy but did not produce that image.
[Tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] attended the hearing under a witness summons and gave evidence that he rented the sleep out from the prior tenant and then for this tenant. He stated that when he started to rent the sleepout the room had a large grey rug that covered most of the floor area and specifically covered the carpet area the landlord claims was burnt during [tenant’s name suppressed] tenancy. The landlord provided a photograph of the carpet burn in the sleep out taken after [tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] had moved out. Mr Liu also stated the two carpet technician’s he got to quote for repairing the sleepout carpet stated the stain was in fact a burn mark.
{Tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] says the rug was never lifted during the period he rented the sleepout from early July 2016 to 18 February 2024. He knew nothing about the carpet burn and says it could not have occurred while he rented the sleepout and must have been present in 2016 when he first became the previous tenant’s flatmate.
The tenant could not talk to the alleged stain in the dining room that is the subject of the landlord’s second carpet claim as the landlord failed to produce any photographic evidence of the stain, either at the time of the entry inspection or at the exit inspection. I also note there have been no routine property inspection reports provided to the Tribunal for the duration of the tenancy that could have possibility also been a source of evidence available to the landlord. The tenant claims there has been no property inspections and that occasionally Mr Liu popped in for a cup of tea and left again but did not inspect anything, nor did he complete a property inspection report.
The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove her claims for compensation for replacing the 11-year-old carpet in these two areas of the rental premise. Therefore, her claims are dismissed. [Tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] has also disproved the tenant’s liability for the carpet damage in the sleep out with his oral evidence, his written witness statement and photographs of the sleepout when he rented it in July 2016 that shows the rug covering that section of the carpet and furnishings being placed over the rug.
The landlord made much of [tenant’s name suppressed] renting the sleepout to [tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] and not passing the rent to her that he received from his flatmate. [Tenant’s name suppressed] is the only tenant on the tenancy agreement and he was free to have a flatmate in the sleep out and to collect rent from his flatmate. He rented the entire premise from the landlord, and she received the agreed weekly rent from him. The sleep out is not a consented second dwelling that can be rented out separately. Therefore, the landlord had no right to the rent paid to [tenant’s name suppressed] by his flatmate and whether or not [tenant’s name suppressed] is responsible for the carpet damage in the sleepout also has nothing to do with who he had in that area of the premise as a flatmate. If the landlord had established the tenant had liability for the sleepout carpet stain, which she did not, the tenant would be held liable for this damage and not his flatmate. He could pursue his flatmate in the Dispute’s Tribunal for recovery of any such damages awarded against him for damage done by his flatmate. Witness fees and travel costs
The landlord had [tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] summons to appear at the Tribunal today. He arrived at 10am and waited to be brought into the hearing room.
[Tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] gave evidence to the Tribunal orally and in a witness statement and produced photographs of how the sleepout looked when he rented it.
As per the witness summons, [tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] is entitled to witness fees and travel costs to and from Devonport to attend the hearing in accordance with the Witness and Interpreters Regulations 1974. I have awarded the witness fee and travel costs to the tenant who [tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] and [tenant’s name suppressed] have confirmed to me will be paid by [tenant’s name suppressed] to [tenant’s flatmate’s name suppressed] when he receives the monies from the landlord.
The $153.44 awarded consists of $116.00 witness fee and $37.44 travel costs at the IRD mileage rate of $1.04 per km for 36 kms to and From Devonport to Northshore District Court. TENANT’S CLAIMS Overpayment of rent
The landlord accepted the tenant overpaid rent by 3 days at the end of the tenancy and agreed to refund him the $424.29 rent overpayment. Unlawful charging of fixed water rate charges
The landlord accepted she had unlawfully charged the tenant the fixed water charges totalling $525.18 for the period November 2017 to December 2020 and agreed to refund him the overpayment.
The tenant says the landlord had agreed to repay this money, taken unlawfully from him back in 2020, but has never done so. Further, the tenant says she agreed to refund this money during mediation and again did not. Water leaks
The tenant provided evidence that WaterCare fixed a leaking pipe that went from the road to the house on 2 June 2023. Water had been running all over the road since 27 May 2023 but WaterCare indicated to the tenant the leak had been ongoing for a while.
The tenant produced water rates bills that show an increase in water consumption and charges for that period of approximately $31.00. The landlord says she did not approach WaterCare for a water rebate when it was open to her to do so and pass this rebate on to the tenant. I award the tenant the $31.00 rebate of his water rates that he paid as a result of this leak.
The tenant also produced evidence that the toilet was leaking in January 2021 and he fixed it himself after the landlord failed to do so. He has proven that his water bill went up by $60.00 for the month the toilet had been leaking and that the bills reduced down again after the toilet leak was fixed. I award the $60.00 compensation sought by the tenant for additional water charges he should not have had to pay for due to the toilet leak. Tenant’s time and mileage to attend the hearing
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award tenants for the time and costs associated with attending the Tribunal hearing. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms the Tribunal may award reimbursement of the application fee where a party is wholly or substantially successful in its claims.
Because [tenant’s name suppressed] has wholly succeeded with his claims I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because Sheng Yin Kai, Tony Liu have not wholly or substantially succeeded with their claims I cannot reimburse the filing fee and dismiss their claim for reimbursement accordingly. Name suppression
The landlord and the tenant have applied for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (See s95A of the RTA).
The tenant has wholly succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication of the tenant’s name is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details are ordered.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct.
Non-publication of the landlord’s name and identifying details is not ordered and the landlord’s claim for name suppression is dismissed. It is in the interest of the public to be able to identify a landlord that conducts itself in such an unlawful manner so as to be warned about the potential future risks of renting a property from this landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4823797 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4823797 — Leaks

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions