How much money was awarded in case 4918153?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; LandlordTenant: $347.70 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4918153?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4918153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11014237-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4918153?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; LandlordTenant: $347.70 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4918153?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4918153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11014237-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 20 Amsterdam Place, Avondale, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4918153 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4918153 about?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson, [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $368.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4918153 — net $368.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
LandlordTenant	$347.70	LandlordTenant
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$368.14
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$368.14

Barfoot & Thompson, [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $368.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 29 November 2024: a. Engage All Trees (or another appropriately qualified contractor) to remove all Privet and Woolly Nightshade growing on the property to the extent that it is practical to do so. b. Engage a plumber to investigate the guttering issues identified by the tenants in the inspection checklist dated 8 August 2024 as “guttering above front steps overflowing” and “minor leaks on joints” and to remedy any issues found in accordance with the plumber’s recommendations.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Stone and Ms Fea. The tenant appeared with his wife who also lives in the tenancy. Although Mrs Waterhouse is not listed in the tenancy agreement as a tenant (and so is not named as a party) I refer to Mr and Mrs Waterhouse in this decision as “the tenants” for ease of reference.

The tenants seek work orders and compensation.

As with all claims before the Tribunal, the party bringing the claim must prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities). For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence produced and all the submissions made at the hearing but the parties should be assured that I have considered all of the evidence in reaching this decision. Work orders

The tenants claim that the landlord has not complied with the landlord’s maintenance obligations.

Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.

Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenants say that at the last inspection on 8 August 2024 they recorded that: a. Poisonous trees need attention – Privet and Woolly Nightshade; and b. Guttering above front steps overflowing and minor leaks on joints.

The tenants also say that the driveway is in very poor condition. The driveway is a shared driveway with two other properties. The tenants said that they have had no information about what is happening to repair the driveway.

The landlord said that the owner has done a considerable amount of maintenance over the last year, including the following relevant maintenance: a. Woolly Nightshade on property cut out, mulched and removed (total cost $172.50 as per invoice dated 19 January 2023; b. Washing the house and clearing gutters, roof treatment and waterblasting paths (total cost of $893.00 as per invoice dated 27 March 2023); c. Two Privet trees on property dismantled, mulched and removed (total cost $575.00 as per invoice dated 4 May 2023); and d. Chemical wash of the entire house and roof including gutters, fascia, eaves, walls and joinery, painting the roof with a three coat system and painting the house with two top coats (total cost including scaffolding $42,837 as per invoice dated 15 February 2024).

The tenants accept that the above work has been done. However they said that the poisonous trees have grown back and that nobody has been to look specifically at the guttering issues that they have identified and that the issues are ongoing.

I consider that, as the tenants have raised issues of maintenance, they need to be investigated by the landlord.

The landlord agreed at the hearing that there as no issue in attending to the trees but noted that not all of the problematic trees are on the landlord’s land. The landlord’s maintenance obligations only relate to the landlord’s land and the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to make orders to ensure that the landlord complies with their obligations. For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that the work orders only relate to the landlord’s land.

The landlord will also need to engage a plumber to investigate the areas of guttering that have been identified and, if issues are identified, takes steps to repair the guttering in accordance it the plumber’s recommendations.

At the hearing the landlord explained that there is a long, shared driveway and that the landlord has taken steps to do patch repairs to the portion that splits off directly to the tenancy property and is within the sole control of the landlord. I reviewed photos of the patch repairs at the hearing. However the landlord has had difficulty in making any progress with the other owners of the shared driveway and can take no steps without their agreement. The landlord said that they have kept the tenants informed about the driveway.

I consider that the landlord has attended to their maintenance obligations in respect of the driveway as far as possible and make no orders in respect of the driveway. Compensation

The tenants said that in January 2023 the hose connections burst off their washing machine spraying water that leaked and soaked the carpet.

The tenants were unable to turn off the water and so called the Fire Service who attended and told them that the water pressure was too high. The tenants said that they asked for confirmation in writing but were told that the landlord would need to contact the Fire Service for further information. They say that they passed this information on to the landlord but never heard anything further.

The tenants said that this happened again on another two occasions in January 2024 only weeks apart. They said that they did not tell the landlord about the second occasion, but on the third occasion they contacted a plumber who attended and replaced the hoses on their washing machine and explained that the water pressure was very high at 800 kpa (the NZ standard provides that the incoming pressure of water to a domestic property should not exceed 500kpa).

The tenants seek compensation for the plumber’s invoice dated $347.70. They say that if the landlord had properly investigated and repaired the issue it would not have occurred again.

The landlord said that after the flooding on 20 January 2023 they had a plumber attend who recorded that “check for leaks and pressure found no issues. Replace irrator on laundry mixer. Found washing machine hose needs to be replaced.”

The landlord said that even though they regarded the flood as being the responsibility of the tenant, they paid the plumbers invoice and also engaged for the carpet to be dried at a cost of $336.95.

The landlord said that when the issue occurred again (they were only told about the third occasion and not the second) they considered that the issue was the tenant’s washing machine hoses, but to ensure no issues in the future they installed a limiting and shut off valve at a cost of $667.00.

Having considered all of the evidence carefully I consider that the failure in the tenant’s washing machine hoses was more likely than not caused by the high water pressure. Household appliances, including washing machine hoses, are not designed to withstand pressure of 800kpa.

The tenants are entitled to compensation for engaging a plumber who identified the issue and replaced their washing machine hoses. I order that the landlord pay compensation to the tenants in the amount of $347.70.

The tenants have also sought compensation in the amount of $61.50 for laundromat services ($44.00 on 27 January 2024 and $17.50 on 5 February 2024). However the tenant has not proved that the landlord is responsible for any delay in fixing the issue, and (as the landlord identified at the hearing) the laundromat invoices including other services such as drying and service fees.

The tenant’s claim for compensation for laundromat services is dismissed. Other issues

As the tenant is the substantially successful party I have reimbursed the filing fee.

It was apparent at the hearing that there have been some communication issues during this tenancy and that the relationship between the parties has broken down to some extent.

This is an ongoing tenancy. The parties will need to discuss how they are going to work together going forwards to ensure that inspections can take place without any difficulties and maintenance and repairs are communicated to the landlord and then attended to.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4918153 — net $368.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
LandlordTenant	$347.70	LandlordTenant
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$368.14
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$368.14