What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4842744 about?

The tribunal order states: Uno Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Eloise Amelia Veber must

How much money was awarded in case 4842744?

Average Consumption Before The Leak: $92.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power rebate for actua…: $1,469.02 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Stress and inconvenien…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,426.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $189.79 awarded to landlord

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4842744?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10850046-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4842744 about?

The tribunal order states: Uno Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Eloise Amelia Veber must

How much money was awarded in case 4842744?

Average Consumption Before The Leak: $92.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power rebate for actua…: $1,469.02 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Stress and inconvenien…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,426.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $189.79 awarded to landlord

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4842744?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10850046-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4842744 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4842744 — net $545.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 27 February 2024	$1,426.43		2023. The tenants confirmed that sometimes they made payments that they intended to cover the water rates but that the landlord used to offset rent arrears.
Water rates: (June, Aug, Sept, Oct 2023	$189.79		Water rates: (June, Aug, Sept, Oct 2023
Compensation: Power rebate for actual loss based on		$1,469.02	Power rebate for actual loss based on
average consumption before the leak		$92.86	average consumption before the leak
Compensation: Stress and inconvenience of failure to		$600.00	Stress and inconvenience of failure to
Total award	$1,616.22	$2,161.88
Net award		$545.66
Bond		$1,980.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$545.66

Order

Uno Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Eloise Amelia Veber must pay [the tenants] $545.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenants] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 18 September 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants made a cross application for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 27 February 2024.
The tenants confirmed that they were supporting family members overseas when they needed financial assistance and at times that meant they could not pay their rent in full or on time. This resulted in rent arrears accruing from time to time. At the end of the tenancy, the rent arrears were at $1,426.43. The tenants did not dispute the amount owing.
The landlord confirmed that the tenants have not paid water bills for the months June, August, September, and October 2023. The tenants confirmed that sometimes they made payments that they intended to cover the water rates but that the landlord used to offset rent arrears. They did not dispute owing these water rates arrears and agreed to pay them.
The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy. TENANTS’ CLAIMS Failure to maintain
[The tenants] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the rental premise in a reasonable state of repair. This means the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15].
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Breaching any of the landlord’s s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which a maximum award of exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be awarded. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants or reimbursement for actual costs incurred by the tenant that should not have been borne by him/her/they.
The tenants gave evidence that: a. They noticed their power and water bills gradually increase from around September 2023 and took steps to reduce their water usage and power usage and changed power company providers. When these measures did not stop the ever-increasing water and power bills, they spoke to the property manager about the high water bills, who told them to check the water meter to see if it indicated that there may be water leaks. The landlord says the tenants did not do this, and the tenants say they do not recall being asked to undertake this test. The landlord confirmed it did not take any further steps to investigate the reasons for the high water bills; b. In December 2023, the Body Corporate noticed water coming from the roof of the building and set about investigating where the water leak was coming from. Eventually the Body Corporate narrowed the leak down to the hot water cylinder in the tenants’ unit; c. They spoke to the property manager on 26 January 2024 to inform him that the Body Corporate had confirmed there was a water leak coming from the tenants’ hot water cylinder and requested that it be fixed. They also informed him that they had not noticed the water overflow on the roof as there was another unit between theirs and the roof. In addition, they say they confirmed to the property manager that this explained the high power and water bills they had been getting since September 2023; 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. d. They followed the property manager up with an email on 30 January 2024, asking the property manager to have the hot water cylinder fixed promptly; e. They followed the property manager up again on 5 February 2024 as nothing had been done to investigate or remediate the hot water cylinder issue; and f. A contractor came to investigate the issue on 7 February 2024 and a new hot water cylinder was installed on 8 February 2024 as the plumber found the hot water cylinder to be rusted and leaky and not repairable.
The property manager accepted that he had “dropped the ball on this issue” causing “a lag” in remedying the issue. He apologised and stated that the tenants had called him in the evening of 26 January 2024 and that he forgot about the issue until he received the tenants email follow up on Tuesday 30 January 2024. He then forgot about the issue again until the tenants sent him a further email on Monday 5 February 2024, at which time he contacted a plumber who came to investigate the issue on 7 February 2024 and installed a new hot water cylinder the next day.
While there's no hard and fast rule about how much time is reasonable to investigate and remedy a hot water leak, acting "as soon as reasonably possible in all the circumstances" is the guideline. For something as essential as hot water, efforts should be made to resolve the issue within a few days. The tenants waited 1 week and 6 days for the landlord to remedy the issue after bringing it to the landlord’s attention and confirming that the Body Corporate had investigated and confirmed the issue was with the tenants’ hot water cylinder.
The landlord also stated at the hearing that after the hot water cylinder was fixed, it checked to make sure there was no further leaking. When it undertook this investigation, it found there was an additional water leak at the meter. It was unsure how long the leak had been in existence and may have found it earlier had it undertaken the water meter test back in November/December 2023 that it asked the tenants to do.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by not investigating and remedying the hot water cylinder issue in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances, and failing to investigate the water leak in November/December when it was evident to it that the water consumption was far too high for a working couple with no children. Instead it left the tenants to conduct a water meter test they did not understand, had no prior experience of and were not sure how to undertake.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $600.00 in exemplary damages (one twelfth of the maximum penalty available) because: a. The landlord had known about the increasing water consumption since September 2023 and was made aware of the increasing power bills around December 2023, after the tenants changed power company’s and reduced their power consumption but found their power bills kept getting higher. Despite this, and being informed three times in late January and early February 2024 that the issue had been identified by the Body Corporate, the landlord failed to take action to remedy the issue in a reasonable timeframe and did not take steps to undertake the water meter test itself back in October 2023. It follows that the delay in addressing this urgent issue was an intentional breach of the landlord’s obligations; b. The tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience of: i. Having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind him of his obligations under the RTA; ii. Having to undertake an ongoing investigation themselves to try to establish why their water and power consumption was so high and increasing; iii. Further delays in getting the source of the problem fixed once it had been identified because the landlord “forgot” to arrange a plumber in a reasonable timeframe; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the one week and 6 days delay in getting the hot water cylinder fixed after they finally found the source of the water and power leaks; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
I also find the tenants should receive a rebate for the additional power expenses they have incurred, for the period November 2023 to February 2024, based on the tenants’ average power consumption for the six-month period leading up to the end of October 2023. The estimated overpayment of power is $1,469.02. The landlord argued that the parties should split the additional power costs because: a. The malfunction of a 15-year-old hot water cylinder was not reasonably foreseeable; b. It took some time for the parties to fully investigate and identify the issue; c. The tenants did not inform the landlord of the increasing power consumption before December 2023; and d. If the landlord had been notified of the surging power usage earlier it would have sent a plumber out immediately, based on the increased water consumption for the same period and it was denied the opportunity to mitigate its loss because it was not fully informed in a timely manner.
I am satisfied the tenants took all reasonably practical steps to identify the cause of the increasing water and power bills and that after it had eliminated the potential reasons within their control for the increasing power costs (altering their actual consumption and changing to a lower priced power provider) they approached the landlord for help to identify whether the cause was anything to do with issues with the property itself. Therefore, I find they informed the landlord of the increased power consumption at the earliest opportunity, once they had ascertained the increasing consumption was outside of their control to remedy and they should not be held liable for costs that have been incurred because of a repair and maintenance issue with the property.
I also find the tenants should receive a rent rebate of $50.00 per week for the period 26 January 2024 and 8 February 2024 (1 week and 6 days) the landlord took to remedy an issue that had been investigated by the tenants for months, identified by the Body Corporate in late January 2024 and not remedied in a reasonable timeframe. I award the tenants a rent rebate of $92.86.
The tenants also claimed a water rate rebate for the period October 2023 to February 2024, due to the increased water costs from the leaking hot water cylinder and a leaking water meter. However, the landlord proved it had not charged the tenants for any water consumption for these months. As such, there was no legal basis for me to award them any further water rates rebate. I dismiss this claim. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Section 102 (4) of the RTA confirms that if an applicant has been wholly successful in his or her claim, the Tribunal must order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application.
Both the tenants and the landlord have been wholly or substantially successful in their claims, as such one filing fee cancels the other one out. As such, I dismiss both of the applicants’ applications for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenants 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 tenants have substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication of the tenants’ name is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenants’ names and identifying details are ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4842744 — net $545.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 27 February 2024	$1,426.43		2023. The tenants confirmed that sometimes they made payments that they intended to cover the water rates but that the landlord used to offset rent arrears.
Water rates: (June, Aug, Sept, Oct 2023	$189.79		Water rates: (June, Aug, Sept, Oct 2023
Compensation: Power rebate for actual loss based on		$1,469.02	Power rebate for actual loss based on
average consumption before the leak		$92.86	average consumption before the leak
Compensation: Stress and inconvenience of failure to		$600.00	Stress and inconvenience of failure to
Total award	$1,616.22	$2,161.88
Net award		$545.66
Bond		$1,980.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$545.66

Order

Uno Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Eloise Amelia Veber must pay [the tenants] $545.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenants] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 18 September 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants made a cross application for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 27 February 2024.
The tenants confirmed that they were supporting family members overseas when they needed financial assistance and at times that meant they could not pay their rent in full or on time. This resulted in rent arrears accruing from time to time. At the end of the tenancy, the rent arrears were at $1,426.43. The tenants did not dispute the amount owing.
The landlord confirmed that the tenants have not paid water bills for the months June, August, September, and October 2023. The tenants confirmed that sometimes they made payments that they intended to cover the water rates but that the landlord used to offset rent arrears. They did not dispute owing these water rates arrears and agreed to pay them.
The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy. TENANTS’ CLAIMS Failure to maintain
[The tenants] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the rental premise in a reasonable state of repair. This means the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15].
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Breaching any of the landlord’s s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which a maximum award of exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be awarded. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants or reimbursement for actual costs incurred by the tenant that should not have been borne by him/her/they.
The tenants gave evidence that: a. They noticed their power and water bills gradually increase from around September 2023 and took steps to reduce their water usage and power usage and changed power company providers. When these measures did not stop the ever-increasing water and power bills, they spoke to the property manager about the high water bills, who told them to check the water meter to see if it indicated that there may be water leaks. The landlord says the tenants did not do this, and the tenants say they do not recall being asked to undertake this test. The landlord confirmed it did not take any further steps to investigate the reasons for the high water bills; b. In December 2023, the Body Corporate noticed water coming from the roof of the building and set about investigating where the water leak was coming from. Eventually the Body Corporate narrowed the leak down to the hot water cylinder in the tenants’ unit; c. They spoke to the property manager on 26 January 2024 to inform him that the Body Corporate had confirmed there was a water leak coming from the tenants’ hot water cylinder and requested that it be fixed. They also informed him that they had not noticed the water overflow on the roof as there was another unit between theirs and the roof. In addition, they say they confirmed to the property manager that this explained the high power and water bills they had been getting since September 2023; 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. d. They followed the property manager up with an email on 30 January 2024, asking the property manager to have the hot water cylinder fixed promptly; e. They followed the property manager up again on 5 February 2024 as nothing had been done to investigate or remediate the hot water cylinder issue; and f. A contractor came to investigate the issue on 7 February 2024 and a new hot water cylinder was installed on 8 February 2024 as the plumber found the hot water cylinder to be rusted and leaky and not repairable.
The property manager accepted that he had “dropped the ball on this issue” causing “a lag” in remedying the issue. He apologised and stated that the tenants had called him in the evening of 26 January 2024 and that he forgot about the issue until he received the tenants email follow up on Tuesday 30 January 2024. He then forgot about the issue again until the tenants sent him a further email on Monday 5 February 2024, at which time he contacted a plumber who came to investigate the issue on 7 February 2024 and installed a new hot water cylinder the next day.
While there's no hard and fast rule about how much time is reasonable to investigate and remedy a hot water leak, acting "as soon as reasonably possible in all the circumstances" is the guideline. For something as essential as hot water, efforts should be made to resolve the issue within a few days. The tenants waited 1 week and 6 days for the landlord to remedy the issue after bringing it to the landlord’s attention and confirming that the Body Corporate had investigated and confirmed the issue was with the tenants’ hot water cylinder.
The landlord also stated at the hearing that after the hot water cylinder was fixed, it checked to make sure there was no further leaking. When it undertook this investigation, it found there was an additional water leak at the meter. It was unsure how long the leak had been in existence and may have found it earlier had it undertaken the water meter test back in November/December 2023 that it asked the tenants to do.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by not investigating and remedying the hot water cylinder issue in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances, and failing to investigate the water leak in November/December when it was evident to it that the water consumption was far too high for a working couple with no children. Instead it left the tenants to conduct a water meter test they did not understand, had no prior experience of and were not sure how to undertake.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $600.00 in exemplary damages (one twelfth of the maximum penalty available) because: a. The landlord had known about the increasing water consumption since September 2023 and was made aware of the increasing power bills around December 2023, after the tenants changed power company’s and reduced their power consumption but found their power bills kept getting higher. Despite this, and being informed three times in late January and early February 2024 that the issue had been identified by the Body Corporate, the landlord failed to take action to remedy the issue in a reasonable timeframe and did not take steps to undertake the water meter test itself back in October 2023. It follows that the delay in addressing this urgent issue was an intentional breach of the landlord’s obligations; b. The tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience of: i. Having to repeatedly follow the landlord up and remind him of his obligations under the RTA; ii. Having to undertake an ongoing investigation themselves to try to establish why their water and power consumption was so high and increasing; iii. Further delays in getting the source of the problem fixed once it had been identified because the landlord “forgot” to arrange a plumber in a reasonable timeframe; c. It is in the interests of the tenant to receive exemplary damages for the one week and 6 days delay in getting the hot water cylinder fixed after they finally found the source of the water and power leaks; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations.
I also find the tenants should receive a rebate for the additional power expenses they have incurred, for the period November 2023 to February 2024, based on the tenants’ average power consumption for the six-month period leading up to the end of October 2023. The estimated overpayment of power is $1,469.02. The landlord argued that the parties should split the additional power costs because: a. The malfunction of a 15-year-old hot water cylinder was not reasonably foreseeable; b. It took some time for the parties to fully investigate and identify the issue; c. The tenants did not inform the landlord of the increasing power consumption before December 2023; and d. If the landlord had been notified of the surging power usage earlier it would have sent a plumber out immediately, based on the increased water consumption for the same period and it was denied the opportunity to mitigate its loss because it was not fully informed in a timely manner.
I am satisfied the tenants took all reasonably practical steps to identify the cause of the increasing water and power bills and that after it had eliminated the potential reasons within their control for the increasing power costs (altering their actual consumption and changing to a lower priced power provider) they approached the landlord for help to identify whether the cause was anything to do with issues with the property itself. Therefore, I find they informed the landlord of the increased power consumption at the earliest opportunity, once they had ascertained the increasing consumption was outside of their control to remedy and they should not be held liable for costs that have been incurred because of a repair and maintenance issue with the property.
I also find the tenants should receive a rent rebate of $50.00 per week for the period 26 January 2024 and 8 February 2024 (1 week and 6 days) the landlord took to remedy an issue that had been investigated by the tenants for months, identified by the Body Corporate in late January 2024 and not remedied in a reasonable timeframe. I award the tenants a rent rebate of $92.86.
The tenants also claimed a water rate rebate for the period October 2023 to February 2024, due to the increased water costs from the leaking hot water cylinder and a leaking water meter. However, the landlord proved it had not charged the tenants for any water consumption for these months. As such, there was no legal basis for me to award them any further water rates rebate. I dismiss this claim. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Section 102 (4) of the RTA confirms that if an applicant has been wholly successful in his or her claim, the Tribunal must order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application.
Both the tenants and the landlord have been wholly or substantially successful in their claims, as such one filing fee cancels the other one out. As such, I dismiss both of the applicants’ applications for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenants 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 tenants have substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication of the tenants’ name is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenants’ names and identifying details are ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4842744 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4842744 — Leaks

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions