How much money was awarded in case 5182691?

Water Rates: $219.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5182691?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5182691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11610814-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5182691?

Water Rates: $219.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5182691?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5182691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11610814-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

276 Puhinui Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5182691 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5182691 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5182691 — net $219.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$219.57	Water rates
Net award	$219.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$219.57

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

David Maxwell Cole must pay [The landlord/s] $219.57 immediately, being water rates.

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 28 March 2025: a. Arrange a suitably qualified professional to repair the Hometech Energy Recovery System (ERS) Unit.

As an alternative to compliance with Order 3, the landlord must pay the tenant $2,000.00 immediately.

If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 3 or 4 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $2,720.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background

The tenancy commenced on 28 February 2015.

A preliminary issue arose in relation to whether Vaselo Vogan (who lives in the premises) should be added as a party to this order as she was in the Tribunal order dated 2 September 2024. While initially I considered that this was appropriate, I have decided not to add Ms Vogan as a party. My reasoning for this is that she is not named in either of the tenancy agreements produced by the parties, neither party had named her in their application, and she did not attend the hearing. The applications

The tenant applied for a work order in relation to various issues. At the hearing only two issues were outstanding (Hometech Energy Recovery System and gas connection). The tenant withdrew the remaining issues from his application.

The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy and for water rates. Tenant application

The tenant claims that the landlord did not repair the Hometech Energy Recovery System (ERS) Unit or the gas connection for the gas hob. The tenant wants the problem fixed.

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.

If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

The Tribunal made an order on 2 September 2024 (4778818) which provided for the landlord to “Arrange a suitably qualified professional to repair the ventilation/air conditioning unit. This work is to be completed by 24 September 2024.”

The tenant did not comply with the order. At the date of hearing, just short of six months later since the earlier order, the landlord has failed to comply.

The landlord did not provide a valid reason for not complying. The landlord gave various reasons for not complying including that he did not notice the date of compliance (although the Property Manager acknowledged that she knew the date), that the tenant did not advise when the tradesperson could attend the premises, and that the unit was not a chattel in the tenancy agreement so did not need to be maintained.

I note that the earlier order did not include consequential clauses and the tenant has not sought compensation for noncompliance.

The evidence produced by the tenant is that the unit was installed in October 2017 to mitigate the noise from airplanes given that the premises is directly under the flightpath for aircraft approaching and tacking off from Auckland Airport. The unit was installed together with the heat pump. The purpose of the unit is to provide airflow inside the premises without the need to open windows given the extreme noise from aircraft.

The landlord tried to argue that it was not necessary to maintain the unit because there was a heat pump in the premises. This unit and the heat pump serve different purposes. This unit stopped working around 2021 and has not been repaired four years later. I note the tenant’s evidence that when he first advised the landlord that the unit was not working its repair would likely have been covered by the warranty. It is unfortunate that the landlord did not act sooner both to benefit from the warranty and to provide his tenant with a more comfortable living environment.

Since 2017 this unit has been included in the tenancy. It is appropriate for it to be maintained. If the landlord chooses not to comply with this order he may pay the tenant $2,000.00. Alternatively, if the landlord fails to comply by 28 March 2025 the tenant may arrange for the unit to be repaired up to a cost of $2,720.00 and deduct the cost from any rent due.

The tenant applied for a work order for the gas connection under the kitchen sink to be repaired.

After the landlord employed the property management company in late 2023 it became apparent that the location of the gas bottle under the sink was unsafe and it would need to be moved.

From the evidence it seems that the landlord had started to arrange for the gas connection to be moved outside but it did not proceed. Instead, the landlord decided to install an electric hob to replace the gas hob. The gas connection was therefore no longer required.

The tenant preferred the gas hob rather than the electric hob. There is no requirement for a landlord to provide a particular type of hob. As the landlord has provided the tenant with an electric hob it is not necessary for the gas connection to be completed. That part of the tenant’s work order claim is dismissed. Landlord application

The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy. On the application the landlord relied upon the tenant’s failure to remedy a breach as grounds for the termination. The landlord said that a 14 day notice to remedy the breach was served on the tenant. That breach notice was not produced at the hearing.

There were no grounds for the landlord to rely on in seeking a termination of the tenancy. The landlord’s application for termination is dismissed.

The landlord applied for water rates. The tenancy agreement from 2015 states that the water is the responsibility of the tenant. The landlord had never pursued the cost for water from the tenant. That is until he employed the property management company.

The water rates invoices began to be sent to the tenant from January 2024. The tenant has not paid for any of the invoices that were sent to him.

The landlord should send the invoices to the tenant so that payment can be made within the due date. In November 2024 the tenant was sent invoices for the period from February to September 2024. That was clearly after the due date for the invoices. I have not included that invoice in the calculation of what the tenant owes.

I have taken account of the invoices produced at the hearing together with the letters sent to the tenant in the same month as the date of the invoice. The amount owed by the tenant for water is $219.57. Tenancy agreement

An issue that arose at the hearing was in relation to the two tenancy agreements.

The first agreement was signed by the landlord on 28 February 2015. It was a fixed term tenancy from 28 February 2015 until 28 February 2016.

The tenant did not sign the first tenancy agreement. He said that this was because he did not agree to all the terms and conditions. When asked about this he said that he didn’t sign because there had been no property inspection, and the tenant wanted a long-term tenancy. The terms in relation to the amount of bond, rent and commencement of the tenancy were agreed. The tenant refusing to sign the agreement does not result in there being no agreement.

The fixed term tenancy was not extended so the tenancy became a periodic tenancy.

The second agreement was signed by the parties on 9 April 2021. The landlord said that the tenant had inserted key terms in the tenancy agreement after he had signed the agreement and therefore without his agreement. Those terms included the commencement date (7 March 2015) and that it was a fixed term tenancy ending on 30 April 2031. The landlord said that he did not want the tenancy to be fixed for that amount of time and the tenant was clear that he wanted a long-term tenancy. There is no evidence that the parties had agreed to either a fixed term tenancy or a ten-year fixed term tenancy in 2021.

The landlord produced text messages between he and the tenant where he asks the tenant about completing his details and signing the agreement. This communication was on 12 April 2021, four days after the landlord signed the agreement. There is a further message on 21 April 2021 in relation to the papers being signed.

The landlord said that he presumed that key terms such as the end of the tenancy would be the same as the earlier agreement. That is why he had signed the agreement without completing those terms of the agreement.

When asked about the text communication the tenant thought that it referred to the signing of some other document, but he could not give any clearer details.

On the evidence I am not satisfied that the second tenancy agreement records the agreement between the parties. It is more likely than not that the tenant has altered the agreement after the landlord has signed it.

Other than the term of the tenancy the second agreement records the status of the tenancy in relation to the amount of rent paid at that time and the bond amount. On the issue of whether this is a fixed term tenancy I determine that it is a periodic tenancy because the term of the tenancy in the second tenancy agreement was altered after the agreement was signed by the landlord.

As both parties have had some success with their applications, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the landlord’s name as sought.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5182691 — net $219.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$219.57	Water rates
Net award	$219.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$219.57