What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4885400 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4885400?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4885400?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4885400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11424485-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4885400 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4885400?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4885400?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4885400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11424485-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

11 Wi Apo Place, Wellsford, Wellsford 0900 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4885400 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams.

The landlord attended by video link. The tenant attended by telephone.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears. The landlord’s application was filed on 10 May 2024, about three months after the tenancy ended.

The tenant applies for compensation for the landlord failing to repair an oven and the septic tank and for having to pay for the landlord’s parents’ power. The tenant’s application was filed on 31 October 2024, about eight months after the tenancy ended. Rent arrears

The tenancy began on 11 June 2023. The tenant gave notice by email on 16 January 2024. She purported to end the tenancy on 5 February 2024. However, at that time, tenants were required to give 28 days’ notice, so the landlord could have applied an end-date of 13 February 2024. In that case the amount of rent due would have been $17,714.29.

The landlord’s bank statement records that the tenant paid a total of $13,390.00 in rent. Therefore, the tenant may be liable for rent arrears of $4,324.29.

If the end-date of the tenancy were 5 February 2024 (the date the tenant referred to in her email), the rent arrears would be $3,752.86.

However, the landlord is content with release of the bond of $1,000.00.

I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant owes the landlord at least $1,000.00 for rent arrears.

The Tribunal will order accordingly.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes...

Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 1 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 2 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 2 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, 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...”

Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair. 3 However, Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 4 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation...

The tenant says the oven and stove ceased working early in the tenancy and it took the landlord until mid-October to replace it, a period of about three months.

The landlord accepted that the oven and stove was not working fully. However, he says his recollection is that the stove was replaced earlier than mid-October and the tenant had told him she had a gas stove she could use and was content with using that in the meantime.

The tenant could not provide any emails, text messages, or other documents to prove the date that she reported the oven issue to the landlord and the date that the oven was replaced.

Given the absence of evidence of the dates of the critical matters, I do not find it proven that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in respect to the oven.

The tenant also claimed that the sink blocked, and the septic tank smelt foul so must have been overfull or in need of repair.

The landlord says he had his brother unblock the sink with a plunger and that there was nothing wrong with the septic tank.

Again, the tenant did not provide any documentary evidence such as texts or photographs to support her claims. She relied on her memory of events, which at the time of filing her application, were about eight months previous.

I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord breached his duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair in respect to the sink drain and the septic tank.

The tenant’s claim is dismissed. 3 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 4 See n 1.

Should the Tribunal order the landlord reimburse the tenant for the cost of power?

In this case, the premises and a house next door regularly occupied by the landlord’s parents shared power and water.

In the tenancy agreement, the parties agreed that the tenant would pay for the power for both premises and the landlord would pay for the water for both premises. The tenant says she paid about $80.00 to $100.00 for power per month. The landlord says he paid about $80.00 or less for water each month.

Under s 39(3) of the RTA tenants are “responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities”. Therefore, in respect to power, tenants should pay only for their own power use.

Where a premises does not have its own metered power, the Tribunal may order the landlord to reimburse the tenant for the cost of power. However, such an order is not a matter of course. The Tribunal must have regard to the substantial merits and justice of the case in accordance with s 85(2) of the RTA. 5

In this case the parties had agreed that the tenant would pay for the power but would not pay for water. The tenant’s expenditure on power was not excessive despite having to pay for the landlord’s parents’ power also. The cost of water was probably less for the landlord. However, even if the tenant overpaid say $20.00 per week for water and power (namely about $80.00 per month), that would only come to $685.71 for the duration of the tenancy.

That amount is far less than the rent arrears the landlord has forgone.

I consider it is fair and in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of this case to decline to order the landlord to reimburse the tenant for the cost of power. Bond

The bond is to be released to the landlord. 5 5 Woollams v Simpson DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1583,16 March 2006 at [8]. Non-publication

The tenant seeks an order for non-publication of her name and identifying details.

Under s 95A(1) of the RTA, 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.

The tenant has substantially succeeded in these proceedings by dint of the landlord pursuing only the bond of $1,000.00 when on the evidence before me he could have pursued rent arrears in the order of $4,000.00.

I do not consider publication is in the public interest or is otherwise justified under s 95A(1) of the RTA.