What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4972738 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4972738?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4972738?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4972738?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10890907-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4972738 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4972738?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4972738?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4972738?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10890907-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

46B Takitimu Street, Orakei, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4972738 — State of repair

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 30 September 2024.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine). Failure to maintain Lynnie Manuelclaims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 RTA.
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
Breaching the obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord’s obligation is not absolute. The tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage or the need to repair. A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after gaining knowledge of the need to repair. What is a reasonable time frame will depend not only the gravity of the problem but also on the evidence of attempts by the landlord to investigate and put right whatever the problem may be. There will be a failure by the landlord where a repair is ineffective.
The issue relates to a heat pump. The tenant says that during the summer of 2023-2024 her heat pump did not work. She told the landlord. Contractors were sent on two separate occasions by the landlord to investigate the issue. On both occasions the contractors said that the heat pump was working. They said that the remote control setting used by the tenant was such that the heat pump would not operate correctly. Upon changing the setting, the heat pump worked.
The landlord said that she arranged for the contractors to attend. Their advice was that the heat pump was working and did not need replacement.
The landlord said that on a third occasion, her contractors were on site working on another unit. They asked the tenant to have access to her unit to see if possibly the issue was an intermittent one. The landlord evidence was that the tenant or another person at the premises refused access to the contractors as the appropriate notice under the RTA had not been given. The tenant disputed this assertion. The tenant was adamant that the heat pump was still not working.
The tenancy ended in August 2024. The premises have been let to new tenants. The landlord said that the heat pump was still in place.
As mentioned previously in this order, it is for the tenant to prove that it was more likely than not that the heat pump was not working and that the landlord had failed to take reasonable steps within a reasonable time period to carry out repairs.
The evidence is such that I have not been persuaded by the tenant that the heat pump does need to be repaired. The advice of the contractors who are professionals in the field, was that the heat pump was working and that the settings used by the tenant may have caused the issue. In light of those findings I dismiss the application. Electricity Reading
Section 39 RTA sets out the outgoings which are payable by the landlord and which are payable by the tenant. The tenant is liable for all outgoings that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises. That includes electricity.
The tenant says that management of her power use is controlled by the landlord. She says that she receives a monthly account for use, but did not know if the account related to her use only. By was of explanation there are three separately occupied units in this complex.
The tenant says that her costs for power increased substantially over the course of the tenancy. In part this is explained by reference to the previous issue relating to the heat pump. The tenant said that she used an electric heater during the colder months to heat the premises as the heat pump was not operational.
The landlord says that there is a separate meter for each unit. She received the power account for the complex and then calculates the usage of each unit by using the meter associated with the unit.
This is different from the cases of Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813 where there was no separate meter. Section 85 RTA requires the Tribunal to deal with matters in a manner most likely to result in a fair and expeditious resolution of disputes taking into account the substantial merits and justice of the case. With reference to s.85 RTA the District Court in Jones v Raui adopted a common sense approach that despite there being no meter, the tenant had used some power during the course of the tenancy and would need to accept some liability.
In the case before me the tenant’s unit is metered. Copies of the invoices to the tenant and photos of the meters for the dates invoiced have been provided. I am satisfied that the invoices are in line with both the tenant usage and the charges to the landlord by the power company.
Given my finding relating to the heat pump, as a matter of logic, I am unable to find in favour of the tenant regarding her increased power use.
The application is dismissed.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant was not wholly or substantially successful and tenant application for suppression is dismissed. The landlord has been wholly successful and suppression of the landlord name only is ordered.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 30 September 2024.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine). Failure to maintain Lynnie Manuelclaims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 RTA.
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
Breaching the obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord’s obligation is not absolute. The tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage or the need to repair. A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after gaining knowledge of the need to repair. What is a reasonable time frame will depend not only the gravity of the problem but also on the evidence of attempts by the landlord to investigate and put right whatever the problem may be. There will be a failure by the landlord where a repair is ineffective.
The issue relates to a heat pump. The tenant says that during the summer of 2023-2024 her heat pump did not work. She told the landlord. Contractors were sent on two separate occasions by the landlord to investigate the issue. On both occasions the contractors said that the heat pump was working. They said that the remote control setting used by the tenant was such that the heat pump would not operate correctly. Upon changing the setting, the heat pump worked.
The landlord said that she arranged for the contractors to attend. Their advice was that the heat pump was working and did not need replacement.
The landlord said that on a third occasion, her contractors were on site working on another unit. They asked the tenant to have access to her unit to see if possibly the issue was an intermittent one. The landlord evidence was that the tenant or another person at the premises refused access to the contractors as the appropriate notice under the RTA had not been given. The tenant disputed this assertion. The tenant was adamant that the heat pump was still not working.
The tenancy ended in August 2024. The premises have been let to new tenants. The landlord said that the heat pump was still in place.
As mentioned previously in this order, it is for the tenant to prove that it was more likely than not that the heat pump was not working and that the landlord had failed to take reasonable steps within a reasonable time period to carry out repairs.
The evidence is such that I have not been persuaded by the tenant that the heat pump does need to be repaired. The advice of the contractors who are professionals in the field, was that the heat pump was working and that the settings used by the tenant may have caused the issue. In light of those findings I dismiss the application. Electricity Reading
Section 39 RTA sets out the outgoings which are payable by the landlord and which are payable by the tenant. The tenant is liable for all outgoings that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises. That includes electricity.
The tenant says that management of her power use is controlled by the landlord. She says that she receives a monthly account for use, but did not know if the account related to her use only. By was of explanation there are three separately occupied units in this complex.
The tenant says that her costs for power increased substantially over the course of the tenancy. In part this is explained by reference to the previous issue relating to the heat pump. The tenant said that she used an electric heater during the colder months to heat the premises as the heat pump was not operational.
The landlord says that there is a separate meter for each unit. She received the power account for the complex and then calculates the usage of each unit by using the meter associated with the unit.
This is different from the cases of Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813 where there was no separate meter. Section 85 RTA requires the Tribunal to deal with matters in a manner most likely to result in a fair and expeditious resolution of disputes taking into account the substantial merits and justice of the case. With reference to s.85 RTA the District Court in Jones v Raui adopted a common sense approach that despite there being no meter, the tenant had used some power during the course of the tenancy and would need to accept some liability.
In the case before me the tenant’s unit is metered. Copies of the invoices to the tenant and photos of the meters for the dates invoiced have been provided. I am satisfied that the invoices are in line with both the tenant usage and the charges to the landlord by the power company.
Given my finding relating to the heat pump, as a matter of logic, I am unable to find in favour of the tenant regarding her increased power use.
The application is dismissed.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant was not wholly or substantially successful and tenant application for suppression is dismissed. The landlord has been wholly successful and suppression of the landlord name only is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4972738 — State of repair at 46B Takitimu Street, Orakei, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4972738 — State of repair at 46B Takitimu Street, Orakei, Auckland 1071

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