What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4879941 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4879941?

Compensation: Rent Credit: $621.44 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Water Refund: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4879941?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4879941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11130947-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4879941 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4879941?

Compensation: Rent Credit: $621.44 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Water Refund: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4879941?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4879941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11130947-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16 Woodlands Crescent, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4879941 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4879941 — net $1,641.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent credit	$621.44	Rent credit
Compensation: Water refund	$1,000.00	Water refund
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,641.88
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,641.88

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy was to begin on 8 December 2022 and ended on 26 March 2024.

The parties had attended mediation on 27 June 2024 where agreement was reached on some matters. The parties had agreed for the tenant to pay the insurance excess of $550.00 for deck damage repair. In addition, the bond was released with the landlord receiving $550.00 (for the deck repair) and the tenant received the balance of $2,930.00.

The remaining issues for the hearing was the tenant’s claim for overpayment for water and rent.

The tenant says that there was an accident at the premises where a car drove through the front fence. After the accident the tenant noticed that the water invoices were significantly higher than prior to the accident.

The invoices were $184.36 (October 2023), $349.77 (6 November 2024), $694.84 (December 2024), $756.27 (9 January 2024), $1,016.25 (8 February 2024), and $945.33 (7 March 2024). The invoices increased considerably during this period.

At the hearing the landlord said that he paid for the February and March invoices (totalling $1961.58). The landlord applied for a rebate due to the leaking and $1,795.19 was applied to the April 2024 invoice. The landlord received that rebate which reduced the amount owed for February and March to $166.39. That amount was added to the consumption from March to total $232.56, which was charged to the tenant. Therefore, the landlord did not pay the total amount for the February and March invoices as claimed.

It was clear that the invoices were considerably higher than the normal usage for these tenants. The previous invoices ranged from $69.00 to $150.00 per month.

The landlord said at the hearing that he was aware of the leak in December 2023, but a plumber did not attend to investigate the leak until February 2024.

A second rebate was received in June 2024 after the tenancy ended. That rebate was $632.63.

The tenant paid $1,000.00 toward water from 15 November 2023 until the end of the tenancy. While the rebate almost covered two months water usage (February and March) the tenant was still charged considerably high-water invoices of $349.77, $694.84 and $756.27 as well as $232.56 which was part of the February and March invoices.

The landlord did not take steps to investigate the leak until at least two months after he said he was aware there was a leak. The tenant said that the landlord did not employ anyone to look at the damage caused from the car accident.

I have reached the view that the tenant should not be responsible for the excess water bills during this period. I have refunded the tenant the amount that she paid toward the water being $1,000.00.

I note that the two Watercare rebates total $2,361.65 whereas the landlord only paid two invoices totalling $1961.58 (less $166.39 charged to the tenant). Therefore, the landlord has received $566.46 above the amount that he paid toward the water invoices.

In relation to the rent the tenant claims that the tenancy did not begin until 13 December 2022 because when they began moving in the kitchen had been removed and a new kitchen had not been installed. There is communication between the parties stating that the tenancy would not begin until 13 December 2022 when the kitchen will have been installed.

This amounts to a rent refund of $621.44 which I refund to the tenant.

Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4879941 — net $1,641.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent credit	$621.44	Rent credit
Compensation: Water refund	$1,000.00	Water refund
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,641.88
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,641.88

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Climber Property Ltd As Agent For Haoyu Wang must pay [The tenant/s] $1,641.88 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy was to begin on 8 December 2022 and ended on 26 March 2024.
The parties had attended mediation on 27 June 2024 where agreement was reached on some matters. The parties had agreed for the tenant to pay the insurance excess of $550.00 for deck damage repair. In addition, the bond was released with the landlord receiving $550.00 (for the deck repair) and the tenant received the balance of $2,930.00.
The remaining issues for the hearing was the tenant’s claim for overpayment for water and rent.
The tenant says that there was an accident at the premises where a car drove through the front fence. After the accident the tenant noticed that the water invoices were significantly higher than prior to the accident.
The invoices were $184.36 (October 2023), $349.77 (6 November 2024), $694.84 (December 2024), $756.27 (9 January 2024), $1,016.25 (8 February 2024), and $945.33 (7 March 2024). The invoices increased considerably during this period.
At the hearing the landlord said that he paid for the February and March invoices (totalling $1961.58). The landlord applied for a rebate due to the leaking and $1,795.19 was applied to the April 2024 invoice. The landlord received that rebate which reduced the amount owed for February and March to $166.39. That amount was added to the consumption from March to total $232.56, which was charged to the tenant. Therefore, the landlord did not pay the total amount for the February and March invoices as claimed.
It was clear that the invoices were considerably higher than the normal usage for these tenants. The previous invoices ranged from $69.00 to $150.00 per month.
The landlord said at the hearing that he was aware of the leak in December 2023, but a plumber did not attend to investigate the leak until February 2024.
A second rebate was received in June 2024 after the tenancy ended. That rebate was $632.63.
The tenant paid $1,000.00 toward water from 15 November 2023 until the end of the tenancy. While the rebate almost covered two months water usage (February and March) the tenant was still charged considerably high-water invoices of $349.77, $694.84 and $756.27 as well as $232.56 which was part of the February and March invoices.
The landlord did not take steps to investigate the leak until at least two months after he said he was aware there was a leak. The tenant said that the landlord did not employ anyone to look at the damage caused from the car accident.
I have reached the view that the tenant should not be responsible for the excess water bills during this period. I have refunded the tenant the amount that she paid toward the water being $1,000.00.
I note that the two Watercare rebates total $2,361.65 whereas the landlord only paid two invoices totalling $1961.58 (less $166.39 charged to the tenant). Therefore, the landlord has received $566.46 above the amount that he paid toward the water invoices.
In relation to the rent the tenant claims that the tenancy did not begin until 13 December 2022 because when they began moving in the kitchen had been removed and a new kitchen had not been installed. There is communication between the parties stating that the tenancy would not begin until 13 December 2022 when the kitchen will have been installed.
This amounts to a rent refund of $621.44 which I refund to the tenant.
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4879941 — Tenancy dispute at 16 Woodlands Crescent, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4879941 — Tenancy dispute at 16 Woodlands Crescent, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions