What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5267462 about?

The tribunal order states: Glasshouse Property Management Limited as Agent for Hamilton Mcrae Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5267462?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Of Induction Hob Servi…: $92.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5267462?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5267462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12267235-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5267462 about?

The tribunal order states: Glasshouse Property Management Limited as Agent for Hamilton Mcrae Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5267462?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Of Induction Hob Servi…: $92.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5267462?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5267462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12267235-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 45 Tranmere Road, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5267462 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5267462 — net $119.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimbursement of induction hob service fee	$92.00	Reimbursement of induction hob service fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$119.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$119.00

Ms Birkhart, Property Manager, and Ms Elliottyson, Operations Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Mr Choi, a Court appointed Mandarin interpreter, assisted with the hearing.

The tenancy commenced on 7 March 2025 with the fixed term due to expire on 8 March 2026.

On 20 May 2025, the tenant filed an application with the Tribunal seeking reimbursement of the induction hob service fee callout charge which they had been required to pay, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

At the hearing, the tenant sought to amend her claim to include compensation for a dripping drain which they say the landlord failed to address and has resulted in a breach of their right to quiet enjoyment. The landlord objected to the amendment on the basis they were not aware of the claim and not in a position to properly respond. The Tribunal declined to amend the claim, the principles of fairness and natural justice apply. Burden and standard of proof

The onus of proving these claims rests with the tenant. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish more likely than not that the landlord has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”). General legal principles

In accordance with section 77(k) of the Act, the Tribunal can order any landlord or tenant to pay the other party any sum found to be owing under the provisions of the Act or the tenancy agreement.

In accordance with section 40(1)(d) of the Act, the tenant shall notify the landlord as soon as possible after the discovery, of any damage to the property or of the need for any repairs.

In accordance with section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord shall provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. Ceramic induction hob (the “hob”)

The tenant seeks compensation of $92.00, the amount she was charged by the landlord to have a contractor inspect the properties hob.

The tenant states that shortly after moving into the property she identified ten repair/disrepair issues which she reported to the landlord. Seven of these issues have since been resolved through the attendance of various contractors.

The tenant said she first notified the landlord of a potential fault with the hob on 6 April 2025. Her complaint was that the hob was difficult to turn on and there appeared to be a heating problem with the bottom left element.

The landlord’s maintenance manager attended the property on 10 April 2025. He agreed the hob was difficult to turn on and left the tenant with the task of trying to resolve the issue. The maintenance manager followed up his visit with an e-mail to the tenant inviting her to contact the landlord if the problem persisted.

The tenant told the Tribunal she eventually worked out how to turn the hob on.

On 2 May 2025, the tenant e-mailed the landlord to raise fresh concerns about the hob not heating evenly or to a high enough temperature. The tenant provided the landlord with photographs and a video to demonstrate the fault. The tenant submitted as part of her evidence to the Tribunal two photographs of the hob showing: a. A photograph of a pot of water on the hob where only one side of the pan was boiling; and b. A photograph showing one side of the ceramic element glowing brighter than the other. Landlord’s evidence

The landlord told the Tribunal that the property is relatively new, having been built in 2022, with the tenant being the second occupant to live in the premises. During the pre-tenancy inspection the landlord said they tested the hob by turning it on and found it to be working properly.

The landlord told the Tribunal that after the tenant initially raised concerns about the hob, they arranged for their maintenance manager to attend the property to investigate. The landlord said they also gave the tenant advice about the need to use cook wear specifically designed for induction cooking when using the hob.

The landlord said after they received the second complaint about the hob not producing enough heat and the elements not heating evenly, they arranged for it to be inspected by a contractor. The landlord said they did not believe there was a fault with the hob but arranged for the inspection to address the tenant’s concerns and provide reassurance the hob was working properly. As part of the contractors visit to the property, the landlord asked the tenant to show the contractor the type of cookware she was using.

The landlord did not remind the tenant that she would be liable for the contractor’s call out fee if no fault were detected.

The parties agreed that the contractor who inspected the hob found it to be operating correctly with no faults.

The landlord relies on clause 13 of the tenancy agreement which states, the tenant is liable for call out charges where no fault is found. The landlord states that as no fault was found the tenant is liable for the $92.00 service fee callout charge. Decision and Analysis

After hearing from the landlord and the tenant I am satisfied that: a. On 6 April 2025, the tenant reported difficulty turning on the hob and a heating issue with the bottom left element. b. On 10 April 2025, the landlord’s maintenance manager attended the property. They agreed the hob was difficult to turn on. Following the visit, the maintenance manager sent the tenant an e-mail inviting her to contact the landlord should the problem persist. c. The tenant resolved the issue of having difficulty turning on the hob. d. Sometime between 6 and 10 April 2025 the landlord advised the tenant that cookware specifically designed for induction cooking needed to be used on the hob. e. On 2 May 2025, the tenant contacted the landlord to complain the hob failed to produce enough heat and the elements were not heating evenly. f. The landlord arranged for a contractor to visit the property to inspect the hob for faults. At the landlord’s request, the tenant showed the contractor the cookware she was using on the hob. g. The contractor’s inspection of the hob revealed no faults. The invoice states the elements were heating correctly and all elements were cycling as they should. The invoice said the contractor explained the operation of hob to the tenant. h. The invoice records the uneven cooking relates to the tenant’s cookware and not the hob.

The question the Tribunal must determine is, is the tenant liable for the service fee callout charge after no fault was detected with the hob. If the tenant is not liable for the cost, then the landlord must compensate the tenant for the $92.00 service fee callout charged.

By a fine margin, the Tribunal finds that the tenant is not liable to pay for the service fee callout charge.

In accordance with section 40 of the Act the tenant notified the landlord of her ongoing issues with the hob and provided evidence of the hob not producing enough heat and the elements not heating evenly. The landlord did not accept there was a fault with the hob but did not communicate this with the tenant.

The Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord properly instructed the tenant on the use and function of the hob. The landlord did not provide the tenant with any information about the hob’s maximum temperature settings, nor is there any evidence to show the landlord explained induction cooking to the tenant. The landlord did provide the tenant with general advice to use cookware suitable for induction cooking but failed to provide detailed information about the type of induction cookware suitable for use on the property’s hob. It is clear to the Tribunal that it was left to the Contractor to explain the use and function of the hob. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the tenant is not liable to pay the service fee call out charge.

The claim for compensation is proved. Costs and name suppression

Because [The tenant/s] tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5267462 — net $119.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimbursement of induction hob service fee	$92.00	Reimbursement of induction hob service fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$119.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$119.00