What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4863963 about?

The tribunal order states: [The respondent/s] is to pay [the landlord] $184.55 from the bond, per the table

How much money was awarded in case 4863963?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pre Carpet Treatment Onsite: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $89.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4863963?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4863963?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11018414-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4863963 about?

The tribunal order states: [The respondent/s] is to pay [the landlord] $184.55 from the bond, per the table

How much money was awarded in case 4863963?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pre Carpet Treatment Onsite: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $89.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4863963?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4863963?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11018414-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4863963 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4863963 — net $184.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Pre carpet treatment onsite	$75.00	Pre carpet treatment onsite
Water rates	$89.11	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$184.55
Bond	$1,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$184.55

Order

[The respondent/s] is to pay [the landlord] $184.55 from the bond, per the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $184.55 [The tenant/s]: $1,215.45

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant had advised she would not be attending. Two prior hearings have been adjourned at the last minute at the request of the tenant. The last adjourning order cautioned that no further adjournments would be made. Provision for teleconference attendance and/or written submissions were offered.
As I noted in my last adjourning order, dated 9 September 2024: [3] I have sympathy with the tenant’s circumstances. However, the claims are not significant, and the Tribunal is expected to deal with such applications expeditiously. The further delay will only be causing the tenant further angst and resolution is timely.
The Registry contacted the tenant today, prior to the hearing. She confirmed she would not be joining.
The landlord sought compensation from the bond, being water rates, cost of pest treatment, and the filing fee. Water
The landlord generated a final water rates invoice. The metered consumption aligns with the prior utility bill and the amount of $89.11 is proven and awarded. Pest treatment
The tenancy commenced in June 2022. There were previous tenant complaints regarding fleas and rodents. These were treated although no actual evidence of the pests was found.
In early 2024, the tenant expressed concerns regarding carpet moth. She listed a series of medical issues she believed were caused by the pest.
JAE Nelson were contracted to attend. The tenant was to move all furniture prior so any treatment could be conducted.
Not all furniture was moved and an additional cost of $75.00 labour for moving furniture was incurred. I consider this cost was due to the tenant failing to move all furniture and recovery of the cost by an award for the full amount is appropriate.
The second invoice was for $205.00. This cost was for carpet pest treatment – a separate charge for removal of a wasp nest at the same time has been resolved by the landlord.
The contractor advised in writing of the effort involved. They did not consider there was any evidence of carpet pest but the tenant was very concerned so they applied the treatment to the two areas of woollen carpet. The tenant had concerns about other areas within the premises so the contractor treated all carpeted (wool or synthetic) and hard floor areas. This increased the cost and while commendable customer service, the owner appears to have worn the cost of this (no discount is apparent in the invoice).
The carpet itself was aged and in poor condition in the areas photographed. There were areas of damage shown consistent with carpet pest damage. The landlord believed this was historic damage as the entry report noted some such damage. I note the landlord had offered to replace the carpet during this tenancy, but the tenant declined the offer.
The damage may have been historic, but to order the tenant to compensate this cost I would need to consider the request for treatment was needless, or due to any tenant failure. It appears the tenant was experiencing some serious medical issues. This appears to have been linked by the tenant to her believed existence of pests, the existence of which she believes was confirmed in the carpet damage.
There was a history of accommodation of the tenant during this tenancy. I acknowledge the background that led to this claim but I have some consideration of the carpet damage being consistent with pests, and the linkage by the tenant of her medical issues to this possibility is not without some justification.
For that reason, I decline to make a second compensation order. It is appropriate for the tenant to compensate the avoidable cost of furniture movement, but I leave the treatment cost with the landlord. Even if I was of a mind to compensate, I would consider the unilateral “scoop creep” and cost to treat other others without any clear need or instruction, other than a genuine attempt to alleviate tenant concerns. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. In determining this, I have considered the circumstances and history of this application (lodged in April 2024) through to today and the previous landlord attempts to resolve this matter previously, without recourse to the Tribunal. Bond
The bulk of the bond is to be returned to the tenant. She is encouraged to ensure she contacts the Bond Centre to ensure this is returned to her promptly. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered. It was also supportive of tenant name suppression. While I never had the opportunity to meet the tenant, there are some challenging aspects for her that are apparent in the submissions. That said, the property manager expressed support for her as a good tenant, as well as a concern of disproportionate impact any naming in this order might have. As an entity that relies on such public orders for their business, the landlord preference for tenant suppression was not expressed lightly.
I have considered the landlord’s position and submission. I share its view, that in this matter, the interests of the tenant do outweigh any public interest and I order full suppression of all identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4863963 — net $184.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Pre carpet treatment onsite	$75.00	Pre carpet treatment onsite
Water rates	$89.11	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$184.55
Bond	$1,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$184.55

Order

[The respondent/s] is to pay [the landlord] $184.55 from the bond, per the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $184.55 [The tenant/s]: $1,215.45

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant had advised she would not be attending. Two prior hearings have been adjourned at the last minute at the request of the tenant. The last adjourning order cautioned that no further adjournments would be made. Provision for teleconference attendance and/or written submissions were offered.
As I noted in my last adjourning order, dated 9 September 2024: [3] I have sympathy with the tenant’s circumstances. However, the claims are not significant, and the Tribunal is expected to deal with such applications expeditiously. The further delay will only be causing the tenant further angst and resolution is timely.
The Registry contacted the tenant today, prior to the hearing. She confirmed she would not be joining.
The landlord sought compensation from the bond, being water rates, cost of pest treatment, and the filing fee. Water
The landlord generated a final water rates invoice. The metered consumption aligns with the prior utility bill and the amount of $89.11 is proven and awarded. Pest treatment
The tenancy commenced in June 2022. There were previous tenant complaints regarding fleas and rodents. These were treated although no actual evidence of the pests was found.
In early 2024, the tenant expressed concerns regarding carpet moth. She listed a series of medical issues she believed were caused by the pest.
JAE Nelson were contracted to attend. The tenant was to move all furniture prior so any treatment could be conducted.
Not all furniture was moved and an additional cost of $75.00 labour for moving furniture was incurred. I consider this cost was due to the tenant failing to move all furniture and recovery of the cost by an award for the full amount is appropriate.
The second invoice was for $205.00. This cost was for carpet pest treatment – a separate charge for removal of a wasp nest at the same time has been resolved by the landlord.
The contractor advised in writing of the effort involved. They did not consider there was any evidence of carpet pest but the tenant was very concerned so they applied the treatment to the two areas of woollen carpet. The tenant had concerns about other areas within the premises so the contractor treated all carpeted (wool or synthetic) and hard floor areas. This increased the cost and while commendable customer service, the owner appears to have worn the cost of this (no discount is apparent in the invoice).
The carpet itself was aged and in poor condition in the areas photographed. There were areas of damage shown consistent with carpet pest damage. The landlord believed this was historic damage as the entry report noted some such damage. I note the landlord had offered to replace the carpet during this tenancy, but the tenant declined the offer.
The damage may have been historic, but to order the tenant to compensate this cost I would need to consider the request for treatment was needless, or due to any tenant failure. It appears the tenant was experiencing some serious medical issues. This appears to have been linked by the tenant to her believed existence of pests, the existence of which she believes was confirmed in the carpet damage.
There was a history of accommodation of the tenant during this tenancy. I acknowledge the background that led to this claim but I have some consideration of the carpet damage being consistent with pests, and the linkage by the tenant of her medical issues to this possibility is not without some justification.
For that reason, I decline to make a second compensation order. It is appropriate for the tenant to compensate the avoidable cost of furniture movement, but I leave the treatment cost with the landlord. Even if I was of a mind to compensate, I would consider the unilateral “scoop creep” and cost to treat other others without any clear need or instruction, other than a genuine attempt to alleviate tenant concerns. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. In determining this, I have considered the circumstances and history of this application (lodged in April 2024) through to today and the previous landlord attempts to resolve this matter previously, without recourse to the Tribunal. Bond
The bulk of the bond is to be returned to the tenant. She is encouraged to ensure she contacts the Bond Centre to ensure this is returned to her promptly. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered. It was also supportive of tenant name suppression. While I never had the opportunity to meet the tenant, there are some challenging aspects for her that are apparent in the submissions. That said, the property manager expressed support for her as a good tenant, as well as a concern of disproportionate impact any naming in this order might have. As an entity that relies on such public orders for their business, the landlord preference for tenant suppression was not expressed lightly.
I have considered the landlord’s position and submission. I share its view, that in this matter, the interests of the tenant do outweigh any public interest and I order full suppression of all identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4863963 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4863963 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions