What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4844420 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant and the landlord’s names and identifying details must not be

How much money was awarded in case 4844420?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4844420?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4844420?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10542430-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4844420 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant and the landlord’s names and identifying details must not be

How much money was awarded in case 4844420?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4844420?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4844420?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10542430-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

164 Barrett Road, Riverhead, RD 3, Riverhead 0793 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4844420 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant and the landlord’s names and identifying details must not be published.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,900.00 [bond number suppressed] immediately apportioned as follows: Denby Property Management Limited as agent for [the landlord]: $400.00 [The tenant]: $2,500.00

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by audio call on Microsoft Teams.

The tenant attended the hearing for herself.

Vicki Hetherington attended for the landlord’s agent, Denby Property Management Limited.

The landlord applies for compensation for the cost of refilling the water tanks after the tenancy ended.

The landlord had originally claimed for the cost of unblocking a septic tank pipe. The tenant resisted that claim on the grounds that the septic tank system was defective throughout the tenancy, and that she and her family used the system prudently. The landlord withdrew this claim before the hearing today.

The tenancy agreement stipulates:

Water Tanks - Water tank levels to be checked regularly. Tenants must leave tanks full at end of tenancy. Refill water tank if necessary is tenant charge.

The tenant says that the water tanks were only half-full when the tenancy began, so she left them half-full when the tenancy ended.

Ms Hetherington says the tanks were probably full because the tenancy began in winter when there is plenty of rain to fill the tanks.

I accept the tenant’s evidence that the tanks were not full. She checked them at about the time the tenancy began whereas Ms Hetherington did not.

However, the tenant only had to replenish the tanks on one occasion, probably during the summer of the first year of the tenancy. It is probable that winter rain fully filled the tanks at some point that winter.

The tenancy agreement term requiring the water tanks to be left full is clear. The term ensures that at the end of a tenancy, the tenants of the next tenancy have enough water to get through the summer or most of it.

I have not seen an itemised invoice, only a text message from a contractor after the event that says the cost of filling the tanks was $450.00. I accept the substance of the text message but reduce the amount ordered to $400.00 given the refilling may have occurred weeks after the tenancy ended and some water may have been used or lost in that time.

The tenant and the landlord seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.

That is ordered under s 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 because both parties have succeeded in their claims, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

I do not suppress the premises address because there continues to be septic tank issues at the address that may remain unresolved. That is a public health issue. Other tenants should be able to find out about the premises’ history if they experience this problem at the premises in future.

The Bond Centre is to pay out the bond in accordance with this decision.

Order

The tenant and the landlord’s names and identifying details must not be published.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,900.00 [bond number suppressed] immediately apportioned as follows: Denby Property Management Limited as agent for [the landlord]: $400.00 [The tenant]: $2,500.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by audio call on Microsoft Teams.
The tenant attended the hearing for herself.
Vicki Hetherington attended for the landlord’s agent, Denby Property Management Limited.
The landlord applies for compensation for the cost of refilling the water tanks after the tenancy ended.
The landlord had originally claimed for the cost of unblocking a septic tank pipe. The tenant resisted that claim on the grounds that the septic tank system was defective throughout the tenancy, and that she and her family used the system prudently. The landlord withdrew this claim before the hearing today.
The tenancy agreement stipulates:
Water Tanks - Water tank levels to be checked regularly. Tenants must leave tanks full at end of tenancy. Refill water tank if necessary is tenant charge.
The tenant says that the water tanks were only half-full when the tenancy began, so she left them half-full when the tenancy ended.
Ms Hetherington says the tanks were probably full because the tenancy began in winter when there is plenty of rain to fill the tanks.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the tanks were not full. She checked them at about the time the tenancy began whereas Ms Hetherington did not.
However, the tenant only had to replenish the tanks on one occasion, probably during the summer of the first year of the tenancy. It is probable that winter rain fully filled the tanks at some point that winter.
The tenancy agreement term requiring the water tanks to be left full is clear. The term ensures that at the end of a tenancy, the tenants of the next tenancy have enough water to get through the summer or most of it.
I have not seen an itemised invoice, only a text message from a contractor after the event that says the cost of filling the tanks was $450.00. I accept the substance of the text message but reduce the amount ordered to $400.00 given the refilling may have occurred weeks after the tenancy ended and some water may have been used or lost in that time.
The tenant and the landlord seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.
That is ordered under s 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 because both parties have succeeded in their claims, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
I do not suppress the premises address because there continues to be septic tank issues at the address that may remain unresolved. That is a public health issue. Other tenants should be able to find out about the premises’ history if they experience this problem at the premises in future.
The Bond Centre is to pay out the bond in accordance with this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4844420 — Tenancy dispute at 164 Barrett Road, Riverhead, RD 3, Riverhead 0793

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4844420 — Tenancy dispute at 164 Barrett Road, Riverhead, RD 3, Riverhead 0793

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions