How much money was awarded in case 5218691?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5218691?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5218691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12021275-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5218691?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5218691?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5218691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12021275-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5218691 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5218691 about?

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

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Elevate Property Management Limited As Agent For Kimberley & Paul Black must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, being the filing application fee.
The Tribunal declares the tenant is not liable for the invoice of $67.28, dated 17 March 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via videoconference.
The tenant sought a declaration of non-liability for a landlord cost incurred during the tenancy. A claim regarding locks was withdrawn and a claim raised at the hearing regarding a vanity was not part of the application, nor the subject of any variation and it was not considered.
The landlord has a claim of the invoice value ($67.28) against the bond, but it has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services. It attempted to release the undisputed (bulk) amount of the bond to the tenant but that form was not advanced by the tenant.
The full bond is at the Bond Centre and it is returned to the tenant.

Is the tenant liable for the electrician invoice?

This tenancy commenced 7 June 2024 and has now ended via tenant notice.
Between 16 February 2025 and 10 March 2025, an exchange between the tenant and agent occurred, relating to a kitchen light that was now dimmed. I heard that previously it had been working at full strength.
I have copied below the tenant account of the exchange leading up to the call out of an electrician to attend.
An electrician attended and quickly identified the remote and lights were working correctly. The issue was the dimming function of the remote has reduced the lighting, more than likely unbeknownst to the tenant (as if intentional done, increasing the light would have been apparent). A modest invoice reflected the simple resolution.
The landlord advised the tenant that she was considered responsible for the cost due to there being no fault found. Essentially, operator error was the cause of the dimming.
A further section of the tenant written submission is reproduced below:
The tenant submitted that the remote-control dimming function was not intuitive to use and while she understood the on/off function and had used that, the central console that allowed dimming was an unknown function.
The parties dispute the extent of any explanation of the remote-control use at the commencement of the tenancy.
Subsequently, an instruction manual was downloaded from the internet and remains available for the new tenants, as required. The instructions from the manual are copied below. In my mind, even that raises some potential confusion regarding full and proper use.
I consider three points made above in the tenant’s written submission have some justification. There was a prior technical issue regarding a thermostat raised with the landlord by the tenant in July 2024. At that time, an electrician visit was requested by the landlord but before any such visit the landlord accessed some information from an internet search that resolved the issue and informed the tenant, meaning the scheduled visit was cancelled. This event is considered a good working model between an agent and tenant regarding such queries. While the agent is not expected to be technically proficient, sufficient understanding of appliance functions at a managed premises, so to allow first- line trouble shooting is not considered an unreasonable expectation.
In the later light dimming problem, what later appears an obvious solution was not proposed by the landlord prior. The answer from the tenant regarding the remote-control functioning appears to relate to the on/off function that continued without issue.
On balance, I do not consider the remote-control dual functions to be so obvious that everyone should be expected to operate it instinctively. The provision of the manual for reference at the commencement of the tenancy might have shifted the responsibility towards the tenant but in the absence of that, and having considered the communication between the parties, I do not find the tenant should be held accountable for the invoice cost as incurred.
The declaration of tenant non-liability is made per s 77(1)(a) Residential tenancies Act 1986. Filing fee
The applicant has been wholly successful and as such the filing fee cost is returned by order. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
The tenant requested suppression in her application. As she has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Order

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

Elevate Property Management Limited As Agent For Kimberley & Paul Black must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, being the filing application fee.

The Tribunal declares the tenant is not liable for the invoice of $67.28, dated 17 March 2025.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via videoconference.

The tenant sought a declaration of non-liability for a landlord cost incurred during the tenancy. A claim regarding locks was withdrawn and a claim raised at the hearing regarding a vanity was not part of the application, nor the subject of any variation and it was not considered.

The landlord has a claim of the invoice value ($67.28) against the bond, but it has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services. It attempted to release the undisputed (bulk) amount of the bond to the tenant but that form was not advanced by the tenant.

The full bond is at the Bond Centre and it is returned to the tenant.

Is the tenant liable for the electrician invoice?

This tenancy commenced 7 June 2024 and has now ended via tenant notice.

Between 16 February 2025 and 10 March 2025, an exchange between the tenant and agent occurred, relating to a kitchen light that was now dimmed. I heard that previously it had been working at full strength.

I have copied below the tenant account of the exchange leading up to the call out of an electrician to attend.

An electrician attended and quickly identified the remote and lights were working correctly. The issue was the dimming function of the remote has reduced the lighting, more than likely unbeknownst to the tenant (as if intentional done, increasing the light would have been apparent). A modest invoice reflected the simple resolution.

The landlord advised the tenant that she was considered responsible for the cost due to there being no fault found. Essentially, operator error was the cause of the dimming.

A further section of the tenant written submission is reproduced below:

The tenant submitted that the remote-control dimming function was not intuitive to use and while she understood the on/off function and had used that, the central console that allowed dimming was an unknown function.

The parties dispute the extent of any explanation of the remote-control use at the commencement of the tenancy.

Subsequently, an instruction manual was downloaded from the internet and remains available for the new tenants, as required. The instructions from the manual are copied below. In my mind, even that raises some potential confusion regarding full and proper use.

I consider three points made above in the tenant’s written submission have some justification. There was a prior technical issue regarding a thermostat raised with the landlord by the tenant in July 2024. At that time, an electrician visit was requested by the landlord but before any such visit the landlord accessed some information from an internet search that resolved the issue and informed the tenant, meaning the scheduled visit was cancelled. This event is considered a good working model between an agent and tenant regarding such queries. While the agent is not expected to be technically proficient, sufficient understanding of appliance functions at a managed premises, so to allow first- line trouble shooting is not considered an unreasonable expectation.

In the later light dimming problem, what later appears an obvious solution was not proposed by the landlord prior. The answer from the tenant regarding the remote-control functioning appears to relate to the on/off function that continued without issue.

On balance, I do not consider the remote-control dual functions to be so obvious that everyone should be expected to operate it instinctively. The provision of the manual for reference at the commencement of the tenancy might have shifted the responsibility towards the tenant but in the absence of that, and having considered the communication between the parties, I do not find the tenant should be held accountable for the invoice cost as incurred.

The declaration of tenant non-liability is made per s 77(1)(a) Residential tenancies Act 1986. Filing fee

The applicant has been wholly successful and as such the filing fee cost is returned by order. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.

The tenant requested suppression in her application. As she has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5218691 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5218691 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the electrician invoice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the electrician invoice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions