What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4999688 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4999688?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Remedial Work: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,318.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,556.07 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4999688?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4999688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11210281-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4999688 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4999688?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Power: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Remedial Work: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,318.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,556.07 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4999688?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4999688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11210281-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

46 Ellis Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4999688 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4999688 — net $125.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,318.71		Rent arrears
Water rates	$1,556.07		Water rates
Compensation: remedial work		$3,000.00	remedial work
Compensation: power		$1,500.00	power
Compensation: failure to maintain		$1,500.00	failure to maintain
Total award	$5,874.78	$6,000.00
Net award		$125.22
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$125.22

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4999688 — net $125.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,318.71		Rent arrears
Water rates	$1,556.07		Water rates
Compensation: remedial work		$3,000.00	remedial work
Compensation: power		$1,500.00	power
Compensation: failure to maintain		$1,500.00	failure to maintain
Total award	$5,874.78	$6,000.00
Net award		$125.22
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$125.22

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Mission Property Management Limited must pay [the applicant/s] $125.22 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 2 December 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and outstanding water rates invoices. The landlord withdrew their claims for termination and refund of the bond, as by the date of the hearing the tenancy had ended and the bond had been refunded to the landlord.
The tenant filed a cross-application seeking compensation for breach of the landlord’s obligations and work undertaken on the property by the tenant.
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
I deal with the landlord’s claims first and the tenant’s claims second. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Rent arrears
At the hearing, the landlord first stated that rent arrears were $9,852.00. Shortly thereafter, the landlord stated that rent arrears were actually $7,973.00. I then referred the landlord to a copy of one of the rent summaries filed with the Tribunal, which recorded rent arrears as being $5,518.71. The landlord confirmed that this was the correct amount of rent arrears owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant disputed that they owed any rent.
The landlord provided me with three very different figures for rent arrears, which left me with little confidence as to the reliability of any oral evidence given by them about the presence or level of rent arrears at the end of the tenancy.
Both parties agreed that the tenancy ended on 19 August 2024. There was a detailed rent summary on file which ended on this date and recorded rent arrears as being $5,518.71. The bond of $2,440.00 was recorded as having been refunded to the landlord on 8 August 2024. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that this rent summary is an accurate record of rent due and paid by the tenant however, I am not satisfied that $5,518.71 is the total amount of rent owed by the tenant at the end of the tenancy.
In 2023 Auckland experienced a series of severe weather events. The heavy rainfall during these times caused the bottom floor of the tenancy address to flood.
On one occasion, the flooding downstairs was particularly bad. The tenant gave evidence about the nature of the damage sustained because of the flood. They stated that the water downstairs was approximately 400mm deep. The floors were sodden and walls damp. The tenant gave evidence that their son lived downstairs, but had to be relocated to the garage for two weeks while remedial work was completed, because downstairs was uninhabitable. The tenant submitted photographs of some of the damage after the water had been removed. The photographs confirmed the tenant’s submissions about the state of the state of the property after the flood.
Both parties accepted that the tenant was charged full rent of $750.00 per week during the time that the downstairs of the property was flooded. I consider that the rent should have abated during this period. Section 59(4)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states: (4) Where, otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement, the premises are partially destroyed, or part of the premises is so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable, - (a) the rent shall abate accordingly
Clearly, the downstairs of the premises was destroyed or damaged so as to render that part of the premises uninhabitable. The rent should have abated until it was returned to an inhabitable state. Section 59(4)(a) RTA is expressed in mandatory wording. It states that the rent “shall” abate accordingly. There was no discretion on the part of the landlord to not reduce the rent during this period. Therefore, the rent arrears must be recalculated.
Considering the nature of the damage and the fact that the tenant’s son had to sleep in the garage for two weeks while the damage was remedied, I consider an appropriate abatement of the rent would have been 80% per week. In other words, the tenant should have only been charged $150.00 per week in rent for two weeks while the downstairs was uninhabitable. The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is therefore granted for an adjusted amount of $4,318.71. Outgoings
The landlord claims the tenant owes $4,975.00 in outstanding water rates. The landlord provided water rates invoices from the water rates authority and a summary of the charges.
Mission Property Management Ltd took over management of this property some time in early 2023. Prior to then, the tenancy was managed by Pacific Asia Co Ltd. The water rates invoices provided by the landlord are dated between the beginning of the tenancy in 2018 and end of the tenancy on 19 August 2024. The summary of water charges includes a balance of $3,418.93 brought forward from alleged outstanding water rates owed by the tenant during the time Pacific Asia Co Ltd managed the property.
The tenant denies that they owe any money for outstanding water rates.
The tenancy address is a two-storey house. Between 23 October 2018 and some time in 2022, the tenant occupied the top floor and other tenants occupied the bottom floor. There is only one water metre for the address. There is no separate water metre reader for the top or bottom floor. The landlord gave evidence that during the period where the top and bottom floors were rented out to two separate tenants, the tenant was charged a total of 50 – 60% of the total water bill each month. I asked the landlord how they determined the tenant’s usage was 50 – 60% of the total water bill and they replied it was an estimate based on the number of people living upstairs as opposed to downstairs.
A tenant is 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. See section 39(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). If a landlord claims a tenant owes outstanding water rates, the landlord must be able to prove that the amount sought is exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or use of the facilities.
The landlord claims the tenant owes $3,418.93 in outstanding water rates from the period where the top floor and bottom floor were rented out by two different tenants (23 October 2018 – some time in 2022). There is no separate water meter for the top or bottom floor and therefore, the landlord is not able to prove that this figure represents the total amount of water exclusively consumed by the tenant during their occupation of the premises at this time.
The landlord provided water rates invoices from the beginning of 2023 to the end of the tenancy on 19 August 2024, which prove that the tenant owes $1,556.07 in outstanding water rates for this period.
The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates is granted for an adjusted amount of $1,556.07. This figure represents the difference between the total amount sought for outstanding water rates ($4,975.00) and amount claimed during the period where the top and bottom floors were occupied by two different tenants ($3,418.93). TENANT’S CLAIMS Reimbursement for remedial work completed by the tenant
The tenant contacted the landlord after the flood and advised them that downstairs was flooded. Both parties agree that the tenant spoke with the landlord about getting someone in to remove the water and remedy the damage sustained to downstairs. The landlord advised the tenant that there was likely to be a delay in getting a tradesperson to attend the property, due to the fact that many properties were damaged and tradespeople were likely to be backlogged with work. It was agreed that the tenant would complete the work and the landlord would reimburse him. An exact figure was not discussed at the time.
The parties have different views about how much the tenant should be compensated. The tenant seeks $2,990.00 and the landlord claims $1,500.00 is more reasonable.
To remedy the damage, the tenant said that they hired machines to pump out the water and dry the inside of the property. They also vacuumed the carpets numerous times to extract the water. The tenant submitted a letter from Sione Paea who helped the tenant clean the house after the flood. Mr Paea states in his letter that the tenant removed all debris brought in by the flood, professionally cleaned all affected floor areas and fogged the affected area to decontaminate it from any bacteria brought in by the flood water. The tenant said it took him two full weeks to complete the work. The property is located down a driveway. The tenant said that water pooled at the bottom of the driveway, which meant that when water from inside the house was removed, it immediately filled back up again.
The damage to the premises was not a result of any breach by the tenant. Therefore, the tenant was not required to meet the cost of making good the damage to the premises or to carry out any works to make good the destruction or damage. See section 49A(1) RTA. The fact that they did so was to the landlord’s benefit. In being able to remedy the damage immediately, the tenant mitigated any further loss that the landlord might have suffered if the premises were left flooded until a tradesperson was available.
Considering the nature of the damage and extent of the remedial work undertaken by the tenant, I consider $3,000.00 to be an appropriate sum for the landlord to reimburse the tenant. Power
The tenant’s written application did not include a claim for compensation for power allegedly overpaid by the tenant however, at the first hearing of this matter on 21 October 2024 the tenant raised this issue. I allowed the tenant to amend their application to include this claim and the hearing was adjourned to 2 December 2024.
Both parties agree that between 23 October 2018 and some time in 2022, the tenant occupied the top floor of the premises and other tenants occupied the bottom floor. The tenant claims that he paid the entire power bill for the property during this time. The landlord did not dispute this but stated that downstairs had its own power metre.
The tenant did not submit any power invoices to show the total amount he paid for power during 23 October 2018 – some time in 2022.
A tenant is 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. See section 39(3) RTA.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that they paid the entire power bill for the premises during a time when it was occupied by two separate tenants (23 October 2018 – some time in 2022). Whilst it is usually the responsibility of the tenant to organise connection of power to a tenancy address, in circumstances such as this where there are two separate tenancies within a single premise, I consider it is more appropriate for the landlord to organise connection of power to the tenancy address, take readings from any separate power meters and invoice each tenant accordingly. This has not occurred and as a result, the tenant has paid for power that is not exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises and use of facilities for a period of almost 4 years.
In the absence of invoices sent from the power company to the tenant during this time, I am unable to determine with any degree of certainty the total amount that the tenant paid in power during this period. Considering the relatively lengthy period of time (approximately 4 years) that the tenant paid for power used by themselves and other tenants of the landlord, I consider a nominal award of $1,500.00 is fair and appropriate. Failure to maintain
It is well settled that a landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is a reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy the problem.
A tenant has a duty under section 40(1)(d) RTA to advise a landlord of any defects. A tenant should do this promptly and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before becoming liable for any failure to do so.
The tenant claims the landlord failed to remedy a mouldy ceiling downstairs within a reasonable timeframe.
The tenant submitted a photograph of the ceiling. Part of the ceiling has been removed. The part that remains is black with mould.
The tenant claims that the ceiling was like this when they moved into the property on 23 October 2018. The tenant claims that the original tenants who lived downstairs until 2022 put up with the issue however, the tenant mentioned the ceiling to the landlord numerous times from the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant speaks Tongan and English is his second language. He claims that he struggles with written communication and therefore, he never brought the issue to the landlord in writing or issued a 14-day notice. The tenant claims that the mouldy ceiling is a result of inadequate flooring in the upstairs bathroom. The tenant claims that water leaked from the flooring upstairs through to the ceiling downstairs. He states he is a carpenter and offered to fix the flooring for the landlord many times, but was always told it would be too expensive. The tenant claims that the mouldy ceiling was unhealthy and smelly. He says it was unpleasant for his son to live downstairs.
The landlord states that they sent two plumbers to investigate the issue, as they initially suspected it was the result of a leaking pipe. The plumbers removed part of the ceiling to see if the pipe was leaking. It was not. The landlord gave evidence that the plumber was unable to determine what the problem was. The landlord produced two invoices, which they say are from the two plumbers. The invoices are in Mandarin and have not been interpreted. They are dated 18 July 2023 and 17 September 2023. The landlord did not investigate the issue further.
The landlord claims that if water was leaking through the bathroom floor to the ceiling downstairs, this was a result of unreasonable use of the shower by the tenant. The landlord claims that they had a conversation with the tenant’s daughter who told them that the shower was not big enough and she was unable to shower with the door closed. The tenant denied this. The tenant’s son who also lived at the property was present at the hearing and denied this as well. The tenant claims no one in their household ever showered with the shower door open.
The landlord claims that they sent people to the property to drain the pipes, which they say were clogged with the tenant’s belongings. The tenant denies this and claims that there was no shower-waste in the shower, which meant that it was easier for the shower drain to become blocked. The tenant claims that the shower would not drain properly and would always overflow, which meant they often had to have showers with towels on the floor in the bathroom to absorb the excess water.
The duty to maintain includes a duty to investigate. The landlord sent two plumbers to the property in mid-late 2023 who were unable to determine the cause of the mouldy patch in the ceiling. The landlord should not have stopped there. Further investigation as to the source of the mouldy ceiling should have occurred such as, getting a tradesperson to inspect the bathroom flooring and determine whether it was adequate or not. I do not consider that the landlord has proven unreasonable use in respect of the shower by the tenant. The mouldy patch on the ceiling remained until the end of the tenancy on 19 August 2024. That is a period of approximately one year following the visit by the plumbers. Considering the nature of the issue, potential health impacts for occupants and effect it had on the tenant’s amenity, I consider an appropriate amount of compensation for the landlord to pay the tenant is $1,500.00. Suppression
The tenant’s written application included a request for suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in their claim and I therefore grant their requires for suppression. See section 95A(1) RTA. Filing fee
Both parties have substantially succeeded with their claims and therefore, I make no order that either party reimburse the other the cost of the filing fee. The costs incurred by each party in filing their claim are to fall where they lie.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4999688 — State of repair at 46 Ellis Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4999688 — State of repair at 46 Ellis Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions