What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4912513 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 4912513?

Compensation: $560.00 awarded to landlord

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4912513?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10935061-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4912513 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 4912513?

Compensation: $560.00 awarded to landlord

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4912513?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10935061-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4B Oriana Place, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4912513 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4912513. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
The parties’ names and details are suppressed. 2. The landlord’s application for compensation is dismissed. 3. The marke	$560.00		The parties’ names and details are suppressed. 2. The landlord’s application for compensation is dismissed. 3. The marke

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4912513. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
The parties’ names and details are suppressed. 2. The landlord’s application for compensation is dismissed. 3. The marke	$560.00		The parties’ names and details are suppressed. 2. The landlord’s application for compensation is dismissed. 3. The marke

Order

The parties’ names and details are suppressed.
The landlord’s application for compensation is dismissed.
The market rent is $560.00 per week and the tenant’s application for a rent reduction is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for compensation. It was seeking a determination that the tenant is responsible for a plumbing bill.
The tenant has applied to the Tribunal disputing the plumbing bill, seeking a work order for various items and a determination of the market rent. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the parties must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I have considered the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, I have considered all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I have weighed this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
While I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, I have referred in this Order only to the most relevant or important evidence.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence. The plumber’s invoice
The tenant explained that while he was preparing vegetable soup, he noticed that the sink was not draining. Having tried to rectify the issue, he contacted the landlord and advised it of the need for repair.
The landlord’s plumber attended the property the next day. The tenant advised that after some considerable time the plumber was able to locate a second gully trap which was concealed under the boards of a step to the decking some distance from the kitchen.
The tenant provided photographic evidence that there was dead and living plant material and dirt in the gully trap. The tenant advised that with the gully trap cleaned out, the blockage was then cleared using a hose.
The landlord’s plumber’s invoice records: “Found gully to be blocked. Plunge gully multiple times to clear. Kitchen waste still backing up... Use drain auger to clear pipe. Full of fat build up.”
The tenant denies believes that the blockage was caused by the gully trap being loaded with detritus so that it could not perform its function of catching solids. He advised that if he had been aware of the second gully trap and been able to locate it, he would have regularly checked on it as he does with the other gully trap which is readily accessible. He noted that this was the first time in four years that the tenant has had to notify the landlord of the need for a repair. The tenant believes that the blockage built up gradually over a period of years. He denied that it was caused by his family’s action.
The landlord’s evidence was that the plumber was clear that the blockage was a build up of fat and that therefore the tenant must have been responsible. Decision
Other than the plumber’s sparsely worded invoice, the landlord produced no further evidence to prove that the tenant caused the blockage. The tenant’s contention that the state of the gully trap meant that it was unable to perform its function satisfactorily raises doubt as to whether the blockage was caused solely by actions of the tenant.
This is not a case where a tenant or a tenant’s child has put an inappropriate item down a drain which has caused a blockage. Nor is it a case where a tenant continued with a practice knowing it was likely to cause damage. Instead, the tenant’s explanation that due to the hidden nature and inaccessibility of an essential plumbing feature which has been unable to be maintained and which has then allowed a gradual build-up of material that has caused a blockage, is a reasonable, alternative explanation. It casts sufficient doubt for the Tribunal to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the tenant’s actions have not been the sole cause of the fat build up.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Work order
The parties agreed that the tree issue had been addressed.
The tenant complained that the decking and the carport required moss and slime treatment as these areas were unsafe. Just like an accumulation of moss or lichen on the roof or leaves in the guttering, these are maintenance issues which are the responsibility of the landlord.
The landlord agreed to have the areas treated next month.
The parties agreed that with this assurance there was no need to include this item in the Tribunal’s order. Market rent review
The tenant has applied for a market rent assessment. Sections 25(1) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provide: “(1) On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent. (3) For the purposes of this Act, the market rent for any tenancy shall be the rent that, without regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or the tenant, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents (other than income-related rents within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992) for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant.”
The tenant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the rent exceeds market rent by a “substantial amount”. The term “substantial” is not defined in the RTA, but it is the opposite of “minor” or “insignificant”. The test for market rent is the amount “a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy”.
The concept of the “market” is constrained by the requirement that both parties be “willing” and that the rent meets their “reasonable” expectations. These terms are not defined by the Act. The Oxford English dictionary defines willing as: "having a ready will; disposed to consent or comply; ready to do (what is specified or implied) without reluctance"; and reasonable as "having sound judgement; sensible ... not asking for too much ... not extravagant or excessive; moderate".
The factors the Tribunal may have regard to are “the general level of rents ... for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant”.
The evidence for comparable rents is usually based on advertisements for similar premises in the locality. This evidence has its limitations. Although advertisements usually list the essential features of the property advertised, there is often limited qualitative information available for comparison. Also, advertisements only cover houses currently on the market and do not necessarily reflect the overall level of rents charged for existing similar tenancies in the area.
It is also common for parties to refer to the “market rent” statistics published by Tenancy Services. The data shown is for non-government owned properties and is an indication of the non-government rental market based on the bonds lodged. These statistics cover the rents charged for tenancies where bonds have been lodged over the preceding 6 months. They include median rent as well as upper and lower quartile rents.
The tenant advised that the rent had recently increased from $500.00 per week to $560.00 per week.
The landlord’s file shows that the house is 92 m2 and the section is 340 m2. The house was built in 2017 and comprises three bedrooms, a kitchen/lounge, bathroom including toilet and a carport.
At the hearing, in the presence of the parties, I examined the Trademe advertisements for the area of Highbury and Westbrook and pointed out: a. A relatively newer three-bedroom property with two car garaging in Highbury for rent at $590.00 per week. The tenant advised that he had viewed this property and that it was larger. b. A three-bedroom property with a garage in Highbury built well before this property for $560.00 per week. c. A modernised, three-bedroom property with two car garaging in Westbrook for $550.00 per week. d. Four older but well-maintained and presented three-bedroom properties with either one or two car garaging for between $550.00 and $600.00 per week.
The only significant difference between this and the advertised properties is the presence of a garage in the listed properties.
At the hearing I examined the Tenancy Services Bond Data for three-bedroom properties in Highbury based on 225 bonds which showed: a. Lower quartile rent of $565.00. b. Median rent of $600.00. c. Upper quartile of $628.00.
There are three questions to be determined in an application under section 25 RTA: a. What would be a market rent for the property? b. Is the proposed rent increase substantially above the market rent? c. If so, what should the rent be?
On the evidence discussed at the hearing, the increased rent is at the lower end of the bond data information and the Trademe advertisements. The Tribunal determines that a fair market rent is $560.00 per week.
As this is the current rent, the tenant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the rent exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
As the tenant has had success in his application regarding the plumber’s invoice and the landlord has had success in defending the tenant’s rent review application, it is appropriate to suppress both parties’ details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4912513 — Leaks at 4B Oriana Place, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4912513 — Leaks at 4B Oriana Place, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions