What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4952013 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4952013?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Fixed Water Charges Reimbursement: $396.17 awarded to tenant; Loss Of Amenity Due To Water Ingress…: $921.43 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4952013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11034688-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4952013 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4952013?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Fixed Water Charges Reimbursement: $396.17 awarded to tenant; Loss Of Amenity Due To Water Ingress…: $921.43 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4952013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11034688-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

22 Stottholm Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4952013 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4952013. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Fixed water charges reimbursement	$396.17	Fixed water charges reimbursement
Loss of amenity due to water ingress into bedroom	$921.43	Loss of amenity due to water ingress into bedroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
Scarlett Sze Kai Hong must pay [the tenant] $1,344.60 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionTenant Fixed water charges reimbursement $396.17 Loss of amenity due to water ingress into bedroom$921.43 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,344.60

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing in person. Julian Hetaraka of VisionWest attended with the tenant as a support person.
The landlord did not attend. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The tenant has applied for compensation for fixed water charges and loss of amenity in the premises due to a leak.
The tenant mentioned that she had felt insecure in the tenancy at times because when she raised problems, the landlord had talked about the tenant moving out if she was unhappy and there being plenty of other potential tenants for the premises. She found the comments triggered feelings of being vulnerable, insecure, and stressed.
The tenant is eager for the tenancy to continue on good terms. Her children are well-settled and attend schools in the area. She appreciates the premises and takes good care of it. She did not want to pursue any claim in this regard. Background
The tenancy began in February 2023.
The tenant has been paying for water for the premises including the fixed charges until recently.
On 17 June 2024, the tenant reported leaking in her son’s basement bedroom.
The landlord’s contractor completed repairs that seem to have fixed the problem on 29 July 2024.
The tenant’s son did not use the bedroom between 17 June and 29 July.
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are: a. Should the landlord be ordered to reimburse the fixed water charges? b. Should the landlord compensate the loss of amenity for the leak?

Should the landlord reimburse the fixed water charges?

Under s 39(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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 water, tenants should pay only for their volumetric use of water and the landlord should pay any fixed charges.
Professional landlords, such as property management companies, are usually aware of this rule. However, private landlords are often not aware of it. That appears to be the case here.
The tenant provided copies of the water invoices for which she paid the fixed charges.
The total amount she paid for those was $396.17.
The Tribunal orders the landlord to reimburse the tenant in this amount.

Should the landlord compensate the tenant for the leak?

Legal principles

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 “...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...
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 5 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]. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(d). 4 See n 1. 5 RTA, 45(1A), and Schedule 1A. Discussion
The tenant does not seek exemplary damages for the landlord failing to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard. Rather, she seeks compensation for the period that her son could not use the bedroom due to it not being in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant’s son could not sleep in the bedroom from the time the tenant discovered the gib was soft and bulging due to water ingress on 17 June 2024 until the problem was fixed on 29 July 2024.
I consider that the tenant’s loss of amenity in the premises is to be calculated at 20 per cent of the weekly rent. The bedroom could not be used to sleep in and water ingress into the home created health risks due to increased moisture in the bedroom. Conclusion
The Tribunal orders the landlord to pay the tenant $921.43 for loss of amenity in the premises due to the water ingress problem. Filing fee
The tenant has succeeded in her claim. The landlord must reimburse her for the filing fee. Non-publication
The tenant asks for non-publication.
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. 6
The tenant has succeeded in proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 6 RTA, s 95A(1).
It follows, the tenant’s application for non-publication is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4952013. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Fixed water charges reimbursement	$396.17	Fixed water charges reimbursement
Loss of amenity due to water ingress into bedroom	$921.43	Loss of amenity due to water ingress into bedroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
Scarlett Sze Kai Hong must pay [the tenant] $1,344.60 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionTenant Fixed water charges reimbursement $396.17 Loss of amenity due to water ingress into bedroom$921.43 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,344.60

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing in person. Julian Hetaraka of VisionWest attended with the tenant as a support person.
The landlord did not attend. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The tenant has applied for compensation for fixed water charges and loss of amenity in the premises due to a leak.
The tenant mentioned that she had felt insecure in the tenancy at times because when she raised problems, the landlord had talked about the tenant moving out if she was unhappy and there being plenty of other potential tenants for the premises. She found the comments triggered feelings of being vulnerable, insecure, and stressed.
The tenant is eager for the tenancy to continue on good terms. Her children are well-settled and attend schools in the area. She appreciates the premises and takes good care of it. She did not want to pursue any claim in this regard. Background
The tenancy began in February 2023.
The tenant has been paying for water for the premises including the fixed charges until recently.
On 17 June 2024, the tenant reported leaking in her son’s basement bedroom.
The landlord’s contractor completed repairs that seem to have fixed the problem on 29 July 2024.
The tenant’s son did not use the bedroom between 17 June and 29 July.
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are: a. Should the landlord be ordered to reimburse the fixed water charges? b. Should the landlord compensate the loss of amenity for the leak?

Should the landlord reimburse the fixed water charges?

Under s 39(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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 water, tenants should pay only for their volumetric use of water and the landlord should pay any fixed charges.
Professional landlords, such as property management companies, are usually aware of this rule. However, private landlords are often not aware of it. That appears to be the case here.
The tenant provided copies of the water invoices for which she paid the fixed charges.
The total amount she paid for those was $396.17.
The Tribunal orders the landlord to reimburse the tenant in this amount.

Should the landlord compensate the tenant for the leak?

Legal principles

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 “...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...
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 5 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]. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(d). 4 See n 1. 5 RTA, 45(1A), and Schedule 1A. Discussion
The tenant does not seek exemplary damages for the landlord failing to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard. Rather, she seeks compensation for the period that her son could not use the bedroom due to it not being in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant’s son could not sleep in the bedroom from the time the tenant discovered the gib was soft and bulging due to water ingress on 17 June 2024 until the problem was fixed on 29 July 2024.
I consider that the tenant’s loss of amenity in the premises is to be calculated at 20 per cent of the weekly rent. The bedroom could not be used to sleep in and water ingress into the home created health risks due to increased moisture in the bedroom. Conclusion
The Tribunal orders the landlord to pay the tenant $921.43 for loss of amenity in the premises due to the water ingress problem. Filing fee
The tenant has succeeded in her claim. The landlord must reimburse her for the filing fee. Non-publication
The tenant asks for non-publication.
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. 6
The tenant has succeeded in proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 6 RTA, s 95A(1).
It follows, the tenant’s application for non-publication is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4952013 — Leaks at 22 Stottholm Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4952013 — Leaks at 22 Stottholm Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the landlord reimburse the fixed water charges?

Should the landlord compensate the tenant for the leak?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the landlord reimburse the fixed water charges?

Should the landlord compensate the tenant for the leak?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions