What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4940816 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $71.60 immediately for final water

How much money was awarded in case 4940816?

The reconciled net award was $71.60.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940816?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940816?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10788136-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4940816 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $71.60 immediately for final water

How much money was awarded in case 4940816?

The reconciled net award was $71.60.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940816?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940816?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10788136-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

74 Ardern Avenue, Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4940816 — Tenancy dispute

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $71.60 immediately for final water rates.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Water Rates
The tenant does not dispute that the final Watercare invoice has not been reimbursed by him, which is for an amount of $86.60. The sum due has been reduced by a payment of $15.00 which the tenant says ought to have been applied against the debt owing by him under the Tribunal's Order dated 20 May 2024 (application 4883001, 4882079) (“the May Order”). The net effect is the same. Rubbish removal
The landlord claims compensation of $402.50 for removal of waste from the property. The sum paid by the landlord for that work is proved by a tax invoice from KUNTAI PGD LTD dated 14 July 2024.
The tenancy was ended on 31 May 2024 by the May Order.
The tenant does not dispute that at the end of the tenancy a full 3m 3 flexi bin was left at the property.
On 22 May 2024, while responding by e-mail to claims by the landlord about the tenant having breached his end of tenancy obligations, the tenant noted: “You've showed a prepaid flexi bin and that has been paid for collection. The company does not immediately pick up on your command they schedule for pick up when they're in the area. Given that it's paid for, prior to the tenancy ending, this is a non issue - again I reject your claims.”
The tenant’s evidence is that he had arranged for a friend to organise the collection, but the friend overlooked to do so. The first the tenant was aware that the bin had not been collected was when he was notified about this application.
The tenant immediately e-mailed the landlord on 16 July 2024 saying, in respect of this issue: “You are aware that items were placed inside a flexi bin outside for collection. Given my severe financial hardship I had asked a friend to pay for the collection of the flexi bin, however it appears they forgot and to remedy this I borrowed money to pay for the collection of the flexi bin. Attached as evidence of this payment together with an order number which I give you permission to contact Flexi Bin for any future updates as to their collection time.”
When Waste Management went to collect the bin, it had already been removed by the landlord’s contractor.
The tenant’s position is that he had done all that he could and had the property manager simply let him know, a short while after 22 May, that the bin had not been removed, the tenant would have arranged for it to be collected, as he did when he became aware of the issue after the landlords application was filed. The tenant has provided proof of having paid Waste Management $194.00 on 15 July 2024.
The landlord’s position is that the tenant had made it clear that he did not welcome any continuing communication from the property manager. The landlord says that the photographs of the full flexi bin show that it was overloaded to the point that Waste Management would not have been prepared to collect it, so assuming the tenant would not do anything more about it and that Waste Management would not collect the bin, they arranged for it to be removed by their own contractors.
Each of the parties asks me to assess, from looking at photographs of the bin, whether or not it was overloaded to the point that Waste Management would refuse to collect it. That is not an assessment I can make. There is no direct evidence that the bin was not collectible. The landlord is in the position to provide that evidence.
Section 49 RTA provides: “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
Here, the tenant had made it a clear to the landlord what he had done to meet his responsibility to have the bin removed. His statement that had he known earlier that his friend had forgotten to organise removal of the bin he would have made collection arrangements, is corroborated by his having done so as soon as he did become aware.
The landlord did not arrange for the bin to be collected until 14 July 2024. Between 22 May and that date there was ample opportunity for the landlord to check with the tenant whether there had been a problem with arrangements for removal of the bin and to ask him to follow up with Waste Management. That would have been the easy and reasonable thing to have done.
By failing to do so and relying on its own assumptions about the issues, I find that the landlord breached its obligation to take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss arising from the tenant’s breach. The tenant has paid $194.00 for removal of the flexi bin, which had it been removed, would have met his obligation. In the circumstances it would be unjust to require him to pay again. That claim is dismissed
As the only disputed claim has been dismissed, no order is made regarding the filing fee.

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $71.60 immediately for final water rates.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Water Rates
The tenant does not dispute that the final Watercare invoice has not been reimbursed by him, which is for an amount of $86.60. The sum due has been reduced by a payment of $15.00 which the tenant says ought to have been applied against the debt owing by him under the Tribunal's Order dated 20 May 2024 (application 4883001, 4882079) (“the May Order”). The net effect is the same. Rubbish removal
The landlord claims compensation of $402.50 for removal of waste from the property. The sum paid by the landlord for that work is proved by a tax invoice from KUNTAI PGD LTD dated 14 July 2024.
The tenancy was ended on 31 May 2024 by the May Order.
The tenant does not dispute that at the end of the tenancy a full 3m 3 flexi bin was left at the property.
On 22 May 2024, while responding by e-mail to claims by the landlord about the tenant having breached his end of tenancy obligations, the tenant noted: “You've showed a prepaid flexi bin and that has been paid for collection. The company does not immediately pick up on your command they schedule for pick up when they're in the area. Given that it's paid for, prior to the tenancy ending, this is a non issue - again I reject your claims.”
The tenant’s evidence is that he had arranged for a friend to organise the collection, but the friend overlooked to do so. The first the tenant was aware that the bin had not been collected was when he was notified about this application.
The tenant immediately e-mailed the landlord on 16 July 2024 saying, in respect of this issue: “You are aware that items were placed inside a flexi bin outside for collection. Given my severe financial hardship I had asked a friend to pay for the collection of the flexi bin, however it appears they forgot and to remedy this I borrowed money to pay for the collection of the flexi bin. Attached as evidence of this payment together with an order number which I give you permission to contact Flexi Bin for any future updates as to their collection time.”
When Waste Management went to collect the bin, it had already been removed by the landlord’s contractor.
The tenant’s position is that he had done all that he could and had the property manager simply let him know, a short while after 22 May, that the bin had not been removed, the tenant would have arranged for it to be collected, as he did when he became aware of the issue after the landlords application was filed. The tenant has provided proof of having paid Waste Management $194.00 on 15 July 2024.
The landlord’s position is that the tenant had made it clear that he did not welcome any continuing communication from the property manager. The landlord says that the photographs of the full flexi bin show that it was overloaded to the point that Waste Management would not have been prepared to collect it, so assuming the tenant would not do anything more about it and that Waste Management would not collect the bin, they arranged for it to be removed by their own contractors.
Each of the parties asks me to assess, from looking at photographs of the bin, whether or not it was overloaded to the point that Waste Management would refuse to collect it. That is not an assessment I can make. There is no direct evidence that the bin was not collectible. The landlord is in the position to provide that evidence.
Section 49 RTA provides: “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
Here, the tenant had made it a clear to the landlord what he had done to meet his responsibility to have the bin removed. His statement that had he known earlier that his friend had forgotten to organise removal of the bin he would have made collection arrangements, is corroborated by his having done so as soon as he did become aware.
The landlord did not arrange for the bin to be collected until 14 July 2024. Between 22 May and that date there was ample opportunity for the landlord to check with the tenant whether there had been a problem with arrangements for removal of the bin and to ask him to follow up with Waste Management. That would have been the easy and reasonable thing to have done.
By failing to do so and relying on its own assumptions about the issues, I find that the landlord breached its obligation to take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss arising from the tenant’s breach. The tenant has paid $194.00 for removal of the flexi bin, which had it been removed, would have met his obligation. In the circumstances it would be unjust to require him to pay again. That claim is dismissed
As the only disputed claim has been dismissed, no order is made regarding the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940816 — Tenancy dispute at 74 Ardern Avenue, Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa 0932

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940816 — Tenancy dispute at 74 Ardern Avenue, Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa 0932

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions