What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4860940 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] is to pay Wulam Properties Limited As Agent For Jae Yoon Lee

How much money was awarded in case 4860940?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $1,072.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4860940?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4860940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10727093-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4860940 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] is to pay Wulam Properties Limited As Agent For Jae Yoon Lee

How much money was awarded in case 4860940?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $1,072.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4860940?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4860940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10727093-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 617, 26 Remuera Road, Newmarket, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4860940 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4860940 — net $572.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$1,072.35		Water rates
Compensation: repairs		$500.00	repairs
Total award	$1,072.35	$500.00
Net award	$572.35
Bond	$2,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$572.35

Order

[The tenant/s] is to pay Wulam Properties Limited As Agent For Jae Yoon Lee Kyung Choon Ma Stella Lam $572.35 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Wulam Properties Limited As Agent For Jae Yoon Lee Kyung Choon Ma Stella Lam: $572.35 [The tenant/s]: $2,327.65

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant was assisted by her daughter. Interpretation services were provided.
The landlord applied for rent arrears and water rates to be paid from the bond. It is disappointing that the none of the bond has been released to the tenant, even though the total claim is significantly less than the bond held.
The tenant claims compensation for repair work done to the premises when the tenancy began.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The claim for rent arrears has been settled before the hearing.
The landlord claims $1,072.35 for water rates, which is the total owed to the Body Corporate in the invoice issued after the final reading when the tenancy ended.
The reason there is a dispute about that invoice is because during the tenancy there was a problem with the metre readings. A letter to the property manager from the Body Corporate explains that the transponder machine, which was sent readings from the water meters in each of the units, was faulty.
From July 2021 to August 2023 artificially low readings were sent. The tenant did an actual reading in August 2023 and received a very large quote “catch up” invoice.
The landlord and her daughter did actual readings of the meter for the remainder of the tenancy.
While I understand that it is a far from ideal situation for the tenant, to be given incorrect information about her water usage and then an unexpectedly large water bill when an actual reading was done, it was difficult to be clear about the reason the tenant disputed the landlord’s claim. There seemed no evidence to suggest a fault with the water meter at the premise, only with the way the transport transponder picked up the readings during that time.
At the tenant’s request a calculation was done of the average daily usage during the period from August 2023 to the end of the tenancy, when the charges were based on readings taken by the tenant herself. That was then compared with a calculation of the average daily usage over the whole of the tenancy, by deducting the actual reading from the start of the tenancy and the actual reading at the end of the tenancy. That comparison showed a higher daily usage during the period the tenant was reading the meter, than previously.
That exercise reinforces my view that the evidence does not show that the tenant has been charged any more than for water used by her during the tenancy.
I find the landlords claim for payment of that final body corporate water invoice proved on the balance of probabilities. Tenant’s Claim
The tenant claims compensation for the cost of the following work: Toilet cistern repair - $159.00 Power switch (2) – 136.00 Materials $77.20 Shower chain - $ 116.00 Drawers and corner mouldings - $180.0 TOTAL - $668.20
The tenant’s evidence is that at the initial inspection, which was attended by herself, the property manager and the property owner, faults with the premises were found.
The correspondence shows that the tenant raised those issues with the property manager and on 23 January 2021 formally asked the property manager to have the repairs done.
The property manager contacted a contractor who the tenant says was unable to do the work and said that a builder would be needed.
The evidence shows some delay in the landlord’s contractor arranging to go to the premises and the property manager asked the tenant to contact the contractor direct.
The tenant then asked, “Just to ask if I got someone to do the fix work and give you the invoices that's okay?”. The property manager replied, “No Basel will do the job or you can ask your builder to give me a quote. I will send it to the owner to approve.”
On 31 January 2021 the tenant txt, “Hi Stella my builder the quote is $500.00 including GST could you let me know soon if you can get the approved from the owner?” The property manager replied, “I will get let the owner know and we'll get back to you. What are the jobs included in the quote”. The tenant advised, “The jobs included all the pictures I sent to you”.
The property manager requested details of the quote to send to the owner and then told the tenant that the owner wanted to use his handyman.
The tenant preferred that the landlord’s handyman not do the work, saying. “The handyman you given don't know the work ability because of the covid 19 we don't want random people to access our place.”
The tenant went ahead and had the work done by her builder.
The costs were claimed from the landlord, but the landlord declined to reimburse the tenant on the basis that “It is required for the tenant to keep the receipt in order for them to get reimbursed.... we are unable to reimburse it without evidence.”
As this is the tenant’s claim the onus is on her to provide evidence to prove an entitlement to compensation.
The landlord is correct that the tenant has not followed what would be the appropriate process of either allowing the landlord to get the work done by someone of the landlord’s choice or to providing a written quote for the landlord’s approval and then providing evidence of any expenditure through receipts.
Nevertheless, the evidence does satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that there was repair work that needed to be done at the premises when the tenancy began. That was repair work, not fixtures, alterations or additions, which a tenant may not do without the landlords’ written consent (s.52 RTA).
In terms of unjust enrichment principles, it would be unjust for the tenant to be required to meet the cost of repair and maintenance items which are the landlord’s responsibility, and which ought to have been done before the tenancy began. Equally, it would be unjust for the landlord to be required to pay more than it would have had to pay to have the work done itself.
There is evidence from the communications between the parties at the time, that the tenant obtained a reputable quote for completing the work at $500.00 including GST. That amount does not seem unreasonable having regard to the work that was required. The landlord should not be asked to pay more than the amount of the quote it was asked to approve.
I find it would be just for the landlord to reimburse the tenant for that work, in an amount equal to the quoted cost.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4860940 — net $572.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$1,072.35		Water rates
Compensation: repairs		$500.00	repairs
Total award	$1,072.35	$500.00
Net award	$572.35
Bond	$2,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$572.35

Order

[The tenant/s] is to pay Wulam Properties Limited As Agent For Jae Yoon Lee Kyung Choon Ma Stella Lam $572.35 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Wulam Properties Limited As Agent For Jae Yoon Lee Kyung Choon Ma Stella Lam: $572.35 [The tenant/s]: $2,327.65

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant was assisted by her daughter. Interpretation services were provided.
The landlord applied for rent arrears and water rates to be paid from the bond. It is disappointing that the none of the bond has been released to the tenant, even though the total claim is significantly less than the bond held.
The tenant claims compensation for repair work done to the premises when the tenancy began.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The claim for rent arrears has been settled before the hearing.
The landlord claims $1,072.35 for water rates, which is the total owed to the Body Corporate in the invoice issued after the final reading when the tenancy ended.
The reason there is a dispute about that invoice is because during the tenancy there was a problem with the metre readings. A letter to the property manager from the Body Corporate explains that the transponder machine, which was sent readings from the water meters in each of the units, was faulty.
From July 2021 to August 2023 artificially low readings were sent. The tenant did an actual reading in August 2023 and received a very large quote “catch up” invoice.
The landlord and her daughter did actual readings of the meter for the remainder of the tenancy.
While I understand that it is a far from ideal situation for the tenant, to be given incorrect information about her water usage and then an unexpectedly large water bill when an actual reading was done, it was difficult to be clear about the reason the tenant disputed the landlord’s claim. There seemed no evidence to suggest a fault with the water meter at the premise, only with the way the transport transponder picked up the readings during that time.
At the tenant’s request a calculation was done of the average daily usage during the period from August 2023 to the end of the tenancy, when the charges were based on readings taken by the tenant herself. That was then compared with a calculation of the average daily usage over the whole of the tenancy, by deducting the actual reading from the start of the tenancy and the actual reading at the end of the tenancy. That comparison showed a higher daily usage during the period the tenant was reading the meter, than previously.
That exercise reinforces my view that the evidence does not show that the tenant has been charged any more than for water used by her during the tenancy.
I find the landlords claim for payment of that final body corporate water invoice proved on the balance of probabilities. Tenant’s Claim
The tenant claims compensation for the cost of the following work: Toilet cistern repair - $159.00 Power switch (2) – 136.00 Materials $77.20 Shower chain - $ 116.00 Drawers and corner mouldings - $180.0 TOTAL - $668.20
The tenant’s evidence is that at the initial inspection, which was attended by herself, the property manager and the property owner, faults with the premises were found.
The correspondence shows that the tenant raised those issues with the property manager and on 23 January 2021 formally asked the property manager to have the repairs done.
The property manager contacted a contractor who the tenant says was unable to do the work and said that a builder would be needed.
The evidence shows some delay in the landlord’s contractor arranging to go to the premises and the property manager asked the tenant to contact the contractor direct.
The tenant then asked, “Just to ask if I got someone to do the fix work and give you the invoices that's okay?”. The property manager replied, “No Basel will do the job or you can ask your builder to give me a quote. I will send it to the owner to approve.”
On 31 January 2021 the tenant txt, “Hi Stella my builder the quote is $500.00 including GST could you let me know soon if you can get the approved from the owner?” The property manager replied, “I will get let the owner know and we'll get back to you. What are the jobs included in the quote”. The tenant advised, “The jobs included all the pictures I sent to you”.
The property manager requested details of the quote to send to the owner and then told the tenant that the owner wanted to use his handyman.
The tenant preferred that the landlord’s handyman not do the work, saying. “The handyman you given don't know the work ability because of the covid 19 we don't want random people to access our place.”
The tenant went ahead and had the work done by her builder.
The costs were claimed from the landlord, but the landlord declined to reimburse the tenant on the basis that “It is required for the tenant to keep the receipt in order for them to get reimbursed.... we are unable to reimburse it without evidence.”
As this is the tenant’s claim the onus is on her to provide evidence to prove an entitlement to compensation.
The landlord is correct that the tenant has not followed what would be the appropriate process of either allowing the landlord to get the work done by someone of the landlord’s choice or to providing a written quote for the landlord’s approval and then providing evidence of any expenditure through receipts.
Nevertheless, the evidence does satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that there was repair work that needed to be done at the premises when the tenancy began. That was repair work, not fixtures, alterations or additions, which a tenant may not do without the landlords’ written consent (s.52 RTA).
In terms of unjust enrichment principles, it would be unjust for the tenant to be required to meet the cost of repair and maintenance items which are the landlord’s responsibility, and which ought to have been done before the tenancy began. Equally, it would be unjust for the landlord to be required to pay more than it would have had to pay to have the work done itself.
There is evidence from the communications between the parties at the time, that the tenant obtained a reputable quote for completing the work at $500.00 including GST. That amount does not seem unreasonable having regard to the work that was required. The landlord should not be asked to pay more than the amount of the quote it was asked to approve.
I find it would be just for the landlord to reimburse the tenant for that work, in an amount equal to the quoted cost.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4860940 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 617, 26 Remuera Road, Newmarket, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4860940 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 617, 26 Remuera Road, Newmarket, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions