What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5284674 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 5284674?

Ate Limited As Agent For Kukodisha L…: $120.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5284674?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5284674?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12497132-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5284674 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 5284674?

Ate Limited As Agent For Kukodisha L…: $120.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5284674?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5284674?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12497132-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5284674 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5284674. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ate Limited as agent for Kukodisha Ltd (David and Carole-Ann Ward) is solely liable for Gavin Lowe Invoice dated 1 April	$120.75		ate Limited as agent for Kukodisha Ltd (David and Carole-Ann Ward) is solely liable for Gavin Lowe Invoice dated 1 April

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Vision Real Estate Limited as agent for Kukodisha Ltd (David and Carole-Ann Ward) is solely liable for Gavin Lowe Invoice dated 1 April 2025 for $120.75.

Reasons

The question before the Tribunal is who is responsible for the payment of the Gavin Lowe Invoice dated 1 April 2025 for $120.75?
During a routine inspection on the 21 March 2025 the tenant complained to the property inspector (landlord) that the heat pump was emitting an unusual musty smell when on the ‘heat’ setting.
On the same day the landlord gave a work order to its technician Gavin Lowe to attend to the property and investigate concerns that the tenant had raised about a smell from the heat pump.
The first technician visited the property and dismantled part of the heatpump, but then got called away on an urgent personal matter. Another technician came back and completed the job.
The technician’s invoice records the following: Full Maintenance Service Carried out on: CS-Z71VKR-4960517121 production date 08/2021 All checks completed cleaned coils, and drain tray Cleared drain no unusual smells from system No faults found left system working well. Maintenance Service
A landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the property including chattels such as heat pumps. 1
A tenant has the responsibility of advising the landlord when something breaks or needs repair. 2
The landlord says that the tenant should be liable for the repair invoice because when the technician came to the site, he found nothing wrong and did not notice any smell.
The landlord also says that there is a clause in the tenancy agreement which says that if a contractor is called out and there is no fault the tenant will be liable for the charge.
Having considered the evidence provided by both parties, I am satisfied that the landlord is responsible for the payment of this invoice. I say this for the following reasons: a. When the tenant notified the landlord of the smell it was at a routine inspection. The tenant says that the property inspector (who was not the property manager) did not turn the heat pump on and therefore could not have known if there was a smell or not. I consider a prudent landlord would have turned the heat pump on whilst at the inspection to ascertain if there was a smell or defect as per the tenant’s concerns. If the inspector had done that and had not noticed any offensive or concerning smell, then this could have been addressed with the tenant right there and then. A tenant has the obligation to report any defect, the landlord then has to consider the steps it will take to remedy the defect. The landlord could have mitigated or protected itself from incurring further costs by turning on and checking the heat pump themselves at that time. b. The landlord says that the technicians who worked on the pump did not notice any smell. The tenant says that this is not correct. That the first technician came and turned on the heat pump and agreed that there was a 1 S45(1)(b) RTA 2 S40(1)(d)RTA smell, and started working on the heat pump before he was called away on an urgent business. The second technician completed the job, having done the cleaning and cleared the drain, and then reported no smell. The tenant agrees that after the cleaning there was no smell. c. Heat pumps need maintenance or service from time to time. There is no requirement as to when this must be done, but in this instance the service has been done at that callout, so the landlord has received the benefit of the callout. The landlord does not have the heatpump serviced now for some time. d. Smells are subjective, some people are particularly sensitive to some smells that are not smelt at all by others. I consider it more than likely that there was a smell when the heat pump was activated to heat and that this smell was remedied by the technician’s service. The tenant confirmed that the smell disappeared after cleaning and clearing the drain. e. Tenants cannot clean heat pump coils or drains themselves, this requires a technician. f. A landlord has an obligation to repair defects and maintain the premises. I consider that the detection of a musty odour in the heat pump was a matter that required further investigation by the landlord. The fact that the technician carried out work, is in of itself evidence that there may have been a problem, that was remedied by maintenance. A landlord cannot call their technician to the property for work, and then refuse to pay for the work that was done, because they do not consider that the work was necessary.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5284674. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ate Limited as agent for Kukodisha Ltd (David and Carole-Ann Ward) is solely liable for Gavin Lowe Invoice dated 1 April	$120.75		ate Limited as agent for Kukodisha Ltd (David and Carole-Ann Ward) is solely liable for Gavin Lowe Invoice dated 1 April

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Vision Real Estate Limited as agent for Kukodisha Ltd (David and Carole-Ann Ward) is solely liable for Gavin Lowe Invoice dated 1 April 2025 for $120.75.

Reasons

The question before the Tribunal is who is responsible for the payment of the Gavin Lowe Invoice dated 1 April 2025 for $120.75?
During a routine inspection on the 21 March 2025 the tenant complained to the property inspector (landlord) that the heat pump was emitting an unusual musty smell when on the ‘heat’ setting.
On the same day the landlord gave a work order to its technician Gavin Lowe to attend to the property and investigate concerns that the tenant had raised about a smell from the heat pump.
The first technician visited the property and dismantled part of the heatpump, but then got called away on an urgent personal matter. Another technician came back and completed the job.
The technician’s invoice records the following: Full Maintenance Service Carried out on: CS-Z71VKR-4960517121 production date 08/2021 All checks completed cleaned coils, and drain tray Cleared drain no unusual smells from system No faults found left system working well. Maintenance Service
A landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the property including chattels such as heat pumps. 1
A tenant has the responsibility of advising the landlord when something breaks or needs repair. 2
The landlord says that the tenant should be liable for the repair invoice because when the technician came to the site, he found nothing wrong and did not notice any smell.
The landlord also says that there is a clause in the tenancy agreement which says that if a contractor is called out and there is no fault the tenant will be liable for the charge.
Having considered the evidence provided by both parties, I am satisfied that the landlord is responsible for the payment of this invoice. I say this for the following reasons: a. When the tenant notified the landlord of the smell it was at a routine inspection. The tenant says that the property inspector (who was not the property manager) did not turn the heat pump on and therefore could not have known if there was a smell or not. I consider a prudent landlord would have turned the heat pump on whilst at the inspection to ascertain if there was a smell or defect as per the tenant’s concerns. If the inspector had done that and had not noticed any offensive or concerning smell, then this could have been addressed with the tenant right there and then. A tenant has the obligation to report any defect, the landlord then has to consider the steps it will take to remedy the defect. The landlord could have mitigated or protected itself from incurring further costs by turning on and checking the heat pump themselves at that time. b. The landlord says that the technicians who worked on the pump did not notice any smell. The tenant says that this is not correct. That the first technician came and turned on the heat pump and agreed that there was a 1 S45(1)(b) RTA 2 S40(1)(d)RTA smell, and started working on the heat pump before he was called away on an urgent business. The second technician completed the job, having done the cleaning and cleared the drain, and then reported no smell. The tenant agrees that after the cleaning there was no smell. c. Heat pumps need maintenance or service from time to time. There is no requirement as to when this must be done, but in this instance the service has been done at that callout, so the landlord has received the benefit of the callout. The landlord does not have the heatpump serviced now for some time. d. Smells are subjective, some people are particularly sensitive to some smells that are not smelt at all by others. I consider it more than likely that there was a smell when the heat pump was activated to heat and that this smell was remedied by the technician’s service. The tenant confirmed that the smell disappeared after cleaning and clearing the drain. e. Tenants cannot clean heat pump coils or drains themselves, this requires a technician. f. A landlord has an obligation to repair defects and maintain the premises. I consider that the detection of a musty odour in the heat pump was a matter that required further investigation by the landlord. The fact that the technician carried out work, is in of itself evidence that there may have been a problem, that was remedied by maintenance. A landlord cannot call their technician to the property for work, and then refuse to pay for the work that was done, because they do not consider that the work was necessary.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5284674 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5284674 — State of repair

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