What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4898325 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 4898325?

Water Payment Refund: $85.69 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4898325?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4898325?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11251316-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4898325 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 4898325?

Water Payment Refund: $85.69 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4898325?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4898325?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11251316-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

153 Woodlands Park Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4898325 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4898325 — net $85.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Water payment refund	$85.69	Water payment refund
Net award	$85.69
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$85.69

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $85.69 immediately, being refund for overpayment of water.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 26 May 2023 and was for a fixed period due to end on 26 May 2024. The tenants moved out on 1 May 2024 but continued to pay rent until the end of the fixed term.
At the end of the tenancy the bond was refunded to the tenants.
The tenant applied for a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards and compensation.
In a document submitted at the hearing the tenants referred to claims in relation to the lawn, Healthy Homes standards, rental bidding, hot water cylinder, mouldy kitchen cabinets, reference following ending the tenancy, overpaid water bills and early termination.
The landlord filed an application in opposition to the tenant’s claims. Water bills
I have allowed the tenant’s claim for overpaid water bills. The Watercare invoice dated 13 June 2023 covered the period from 9 May 2023 until 9 June 2023. The tenancy did not commence until 26 May 2023 therefore the tenant has paid for water that was consumed before the tenancy began. The invoice amount is $43.17.
The Watercare invoice dated 10 May 2024 is an estimated invoice. The invoice for the following month dated 13 June 2024 covered the period from 10 May 2024 until 11 June 2024. That invoice was a credit amount because the reading was an actual reading. Even though the tenancy did not end until 26 May 2024 the tenants moved out at the beginning of May and therefore did not use water for any of the period of that invoice. The tenants also did not use water for some of the period of the previous invoice. As the amount of water used by the tenant cannot be accurately determined the tenant should be refunded the amount paid (after the credit was applied). That amount is $42.54.
I therefore refund $85.69 which is the sum of $43.17 and $42.52. Remaining claims
I dismiss the remaining claims for the following reasons: (a) Lawn – the tenancy agreement records that the lawn is the responsibility of the tenant. The Property Manager advised that there is no lawn, and the landlord says that it is the council berm. Even if the Property Manager was wrong and the lawn is part of the property it is still the responsibility of the tenant. (b) Healthy Homes (ventilation) – there is no evidence to establish that the bathroom ventilation in the three bathrooms do not vent outside. There is a Healthy Homes compliance statement and a Healthy Homes assessment from an external company both saying that the premises is compliant with the Healthy Homes standards. While both documents only refer to one bathroom, when there are three, I am satisfied that there is no evidence to establish that the premises is not compliant in relation to ventilation. (c) Healthy Homes (heating) – The Healthy Homes assessment refers to a woodburner providing 7.1kw of the 8.2 kw capacity required for the premises. The Healthy Homes assessment also refers to a Smartvent system. While the tenant has obtained evidence from Smartvent to say that it does not have a heating function installed (which was confirmed by the landlord), I am satisfied that the premises are compliant in respect of heating given the Healthy Homes assessment. (d) Rental bidding – I am satisfied that the tenant offered to pay $10 to $20 more than the advertised rent to enable them to have a pet at the premises. This complies with section 22G(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. On the evidence I do not accept that the landlord breached section 22G(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. (e) Hot water cylinder – there were several occasions where the hot water cylinder did not work as it should. I am satisfied that the landlord took steps on those occasions to repair it. The tenant referred to noise coming from the hot water cylinder from the beginning of the tenancy but did not raise this issue until nine months into the tenancy. The hot water cylinder was replaced the following month (March 2024). (f) Hot water cylinder (leak) – the tenants claimed that the hot water cylinder caused the leak from the bathroom to the bedroom. I am satisfied that the cause of the leak was the shower mixer which the landlord replaced. In order to carry out repairs the landlord needed to remove some of the ceiling which remained open in order to dry out the area. I am satisfied that it was necessary to leave the space open and there is insufficient evidence to establish that this caused any significant disruption for the tenants. (g) Mouldy kitchen cabinets – there is no evidence to establish that the cabinets were mouldy. The landlord said that he looked for mould but could not find any. No photographs were produced. (h) Reference – the landlord provided a reference for the tenant for their next tenancy. The landlord is not required to do so and there is no obligation on the landlord to provide a positive reference. The tenants thought the landlord had not been truthful, but the reference was given by telephone and the only evidence is the notes taken by the other Property Manager and correspondence subsequently sent to the tenants. I find that the landlord did not breach any section of the Act in relation to the reference. (i) Early termination – this tenancy was for a fixed term. The tenant had indicated a wish to end the tenancy early, but the landlord did not agree. Without the landlord’s agreement or an order of the Tribunal a fixed term tenancy cannot be ended early.
As both parties have had some success with their applications I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the names of both the tenants and the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4898325 — net $85.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Water payment refund	$85.69	Water payment refund
Net award	$85.69
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$85.69

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $85.69 immediately, being refund for overpayment of water.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 26 May 2023 and was for a fixed period due to end on 26 May 2024. The tenants moved out on 1 May 2024 but continued to pay rent until the end of the fixed term.
At the end of the tenancy the bond was refunded to the tenants.
The tenant applied for a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards and compensation.
In a document submitted at the hearing the tenants referred to claims in relation to the lawn, Healthy Homes standards, rental bidding, hot water cylinder, mouldy kitchen cabinets, reference following ending the tenancy, overpaid water bills and early termination.
The landlord filed an application in opposition to the tenant’s claims. Water bills
I have allowed the tenant’s claim for overpaid water bills. The Watercare invoice dated 13 June 2023 covered the period from 9 May 2023 until 9 June 2023. The tenancy did not commence until 26 May 2023 therefore the tenant has paid for water that was consumed before the tenancy began. The invoice amount is $43.17.
The Watercare invoice dated 10 May 2024 is an estimated invoice. The invoice for the following month dated 13 June 2024 covered the period from 10 May 2024 until 11 June 2024. That invoice was a credit amount because the reading was an actual reading. Even though the tenancy did not end until 26 May 2024 the tenants moved out at the beginning of May and therefore did not use water for any of the period of that invoice. The tenants also did not use water for some of the period of the previous invoice. As the amount of water used by the tenant cannot be accurately determined the tenant should be refunded the amount paid (after the credit was applied). That amount is $42.54.
I therefore refund $85.69 which is the sum of $43.17 and $42.52. Remaining claims
I dismiss the remaining claims for the following reasons: (a) Lawn – the tenancy agreement records that the lawn is the responsibility of the tenant. The Property Manager advised that there is no lawn, and the landlord says that it is the council berm. Even if the Property Manager was wrong and the lawn is part of the property it is still the responsibility of the tenant. (b) Healthy Homes (ventilation) – there is no evidence to establish that the bathroom ventilation in the three bathrooms do not vent outside. There is a Healthy Homes compliance statement and a Healthy Homes assessment from an external company both saying that the premises is compliant with the Healthy Homes standards. While both documents only refer to one bathroom, when there are three, I am satisfied that there is no evidence to establish that the premises is not compliant in relation to ventilation. (c) Healthy Homes (heating) – The Healthy Homes assessment refers to a woodburner providing 7.1kw of the 8.2 kw capacity required for the premises. The Healthy Homes assessment also refers to a Smartvent system. While the tenant has obtained evidence from Smartvent to say that it does not have a heating function installed (which was confirmed by the landlord), I am satisfied that the premises are compliant in respect of heating given the Healthy Homes assessment. (d) Rental bidding – I am satisfied that the tenant offered to pay $10 to $20 more than the advertised rent to enable them to have a pet at the premises. This complies with section 22G(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. On the evidence I do not accept that the landlord breached section 22G(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. (e) Hot water cylinder – there were several occasions where the hot water cylinder did not work as it should. I am satisfied that the landlord took steps on those occasions to repair it. The tenant referred to noise coming from the hot water cylinder from the beginning of the tenancy but did not raise this issue until nine months into the tenancy. The hot water cylinder was replaced the following month (March 2024). (f) Hot water cylinder (leak) – the tenants claimed that the hot water cylinder caused the leak from the bathroom to the bedroom. I am satisfied that the cause of the leak was the shower mixer which the landlord replaced. In order to carry out repairs the landlord needed to remove some of the ceiling which remained open in order to dry out the area. I am satisfied that it was necessary to leave the space open and there is insufficient evidence to establish that this caused any significant disruption for the tenants. (g) Mouldy kitchen cabinets – there is no evidence to establish that the cabinets were mouldy. The landlord said that he looked for mould but could not find any. No photographs were produced. (h) Reference – the landlord provided a reference for the tenant for their next tenancy. The landlord is not required to do so and there is no obligation on the landlord to provide a positive reference. The tenants thought the landlord had not been truthful, but the reference was given by telephone and the only evidence is the notes taken by the other Property Manager and correspondence subsequently sent to the tenants. I find that the landlord did not breach any section of the Act in relation to the reference. (i) Early termination – this tenancy was for a fixed term. The tenant had indicated a wish to end the tenancy early, but the landlord did not agree. Without the landlord’s agreement or an order of the Tribunal a fixed term tenancy cannot be ended early.
As both parties have had some success with their applications I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the names of both the tenants and the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4898325 — Tenancy dispute at 153 Woodlands Park Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4898325 — Tenancy dispute at 153 Woodlands Park Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions