What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298605 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 5298605?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298605?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298605?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13030446-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298605 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 5298605?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298605?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298605?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13030446-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5298605 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5298605 — net $1,498.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12.6.25	$4,230.00		Rent arrears to 12.6.25
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond refund already received by the landlord		$2,760.00	Bond refund already received by the landlord
Total award	$4,258.00	$2,760.00
Net award	$1,498.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,498.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Kent Thomson must pay [The landlord/s] $1,498.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing which proceeded as a rehearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and refund of the bond to offset the arrears.
The tenant has filed a cross application seeking compensation for his time spent managing the property; including time spent supervising water cylinder repairs; fixing a fence and a broken front door handle. He also seeks refund of the bond.
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden. Landlord’s claim for rent arrears
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. The tenant also accepts the arrears owed. Tenant’s claims for compensation Property management
The tenancy was initially managed by a property manager as agent for the owner. However, with effect from 20 June 2024, the owner ended the agency and managed the property herself from that date onwards. She provided evidence proving the date the agency ended and of her advising the tenant to redirect his rent payments to her bank account.
The tenant alleges that from this point onwards and for the remaining 12 months of the tenancy he managed the property by taking over responsibility for maintenance required at the property. He seeks $1200 for his time spent managing the premises in this respect. He notes that he is a licensed building practitioner and wanted to ensure that the property was well maintained.
The landlord denies that she appointed the tenant to manage the property and/or to carry out maintenance of the property for any sort of management fee. There is no written agreement between the parties nor any other evidence (such as emails or texts) of the parties agreeing to the tenant managing the property for any fee.
As I explained at the hearing, while the tenant may have on his own initiative taken care of some maintenance at the property, he is not entitled to recover any compensation for work done without the landlord’s express knowledge and agreement, which would include an agreement as to the scope of the work and amount charged.
The tenant’s claim for compensation as a “property manager” is not proved and is dismissed. Compensation for supervising leak repairs
The tenant says that he took 2 days off work to supervise plumbers attending the premises to fix a burst pipe in the ceiling above the laundry (a water cylinder leak) on 2 separate occasions in June and November 2024. He seeks compensation of $1,320, being 2 days wages.
The landlord says that the tenant did not advise her that he intended to take time off work and nor did she ask him to do so. She provided evidence which establishes that the first leak occurred in or about 11 June 2024 and the plumbing repairs and appointment of ChemDry to dry out the affected areas was handled by the Property Managers still acting for her at the time. They handled the attendances by those contractors and there was no expectation, request, or agreement that the tenant needed to supervise the contractors.
The landlord also provided evidence of subsequent text messages with the tenant in which he offered to re-gib the hole in the wall left after the first leak was repaired. The landlord requested a quote for the work which the tenant provided and the landlord accepted. There is no dispute that the tenant did this work, issued an invoice for $400, which was paid by the landlord.
A second leak occurred in the same area on 21 November 2024. The landlord provided text messages which prove that the tenant advised her about the leak; she arranged for a plumber to come the same day after hours in the evening; and the leak was fixed the same day. The landlord says that she telephoned the tenant to confirm that a plumber would attend and to check whether he would be home or could leave a key out. He advised her that he would be home. Again, there was no expectation, request, or agreement that the tenant was required to be there and would be paid for his time “supervising” the work.
The landlord notes that the tenant offered to do other jobs for her (such as re- gibbing the wall mentioned above and painting the deck). In those cases, the tenant gave her a quote for the work which she accepted. Once the work was completed, the tenant sent the landlord an invoice which the landlord paid. In other words, the landlord’s evidence is that in relation to any maintenance work completed by the tenant, the scope and cost of the work was agreed first and she paid the tenant for the agreed work. Other claims now raised by the tenant were not agreed.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord did not agree to the tenant taking time off work at her cost to supervise any of the leak repair works completed by the plumbers and ChemDry and she is not liable to reimburse the tenant for his lost wages. I am also satisfied that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the landlord breached her obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, including an obligation to repair the leaks notified by the tenant in a reasonable time, as required under section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). For the reasons given, the tenant’s claim for compensation regarding the water leaks is dismissed. Compensation for fence repair
There was a missing paling on the boundary fence along a shared driveway between this property and the neighbouring property. The fence is on Council land. The parties talked about having it repaired. The landlord advised the tenant that she would seek advice from Council about it. In the meantime, the tenant says that the fence fell away from its fixings and protruded approximately
5 metres onto the driveway. He fixed the fence and seeks $3,000 from the landlord for the repair costs including materials and labour. The tenant advised that he has no photos of the fence when it fell away; there are no messages in writing of him advising the landlord of the issue, there is no agreement in writing with the landlord for him to fix the fence at a cost of $3,000; and he has not provided an invoice for the work.
The landlord says the tenant did not notify her that the fence had fallen away and she simply received a text message from him on 28 August 2024 advising that he had fixed the fence “last weekend.” She took this to mean that he had fixed the one missing fence paling which they had discussed.
As discussed at the hearing, the tenant has a duty to advise the landlord as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair (see section 40(1)(d) RTA), at which point the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair the defect in a reasonable time frame (see section 45(1)(b) RTA). However, the tenant has no right to conduct repairs and seek reimbursement from the landlord before notifying the landlord and giving the landlord an opportunity to address the matter first. Notably, section 45 (1)(d) RTA only requires the landlord to compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where: the state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent; and the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant did not advise the landlord of the fence damage nor seek her agreement to him fixing it for $3,000. The landlord is therefore not liable for those costs. For those reasons, the claim for $3,000 to repair the fence is dismissed. Compensation for door handle repair
There was a broken front door handle at the property which the parties agreed the tenant would fix. Again, the tenant issued the landlord an invoice for the cost of the handle which was paid. The tenant now claims his labour at a cost of $500 which he did not initially claim in the invoice.
The landlord agrees the tenant offered to fix the door handle and she agreed to pay his invoice for the handle. There was no other agreement to pay $500 for labour.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant has not proved that the landlord is liable for $500 labour costs to fix the door handle and she paid his invoice for the handle as agreed. The claim is dismissed. Suppression and filing fee
In summary, all of the tenant’s claims for compensation are not proved and are dismissed. As the landlord has substantially succeeded in the proceedings she is entitled to suppression of her name and identifying details as requested and to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5298605 — net $1,498.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12.6.25	$4,230.00		Rent arrears to 12.6.25
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond refund already received by the landlord		$2,760.00	Bond refund already received by the landlord
Total award	$4,258.00	$2,760.00
Net award	$1,498.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,498.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Kent Thomson must pay [The landlord/s] $1,498.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing which proceeded as a rehearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and refund of the bond to offset the arrears.
The tenant has filed a cross application seeking compensation for his time spent managing the property; including time spent supervising water cylinder repairs; fixing a fence and a broken front door handle. He also seeks refund of the bond.
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden. Landlord’s claim for rent arrears
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. The tenant also accepts the arrears owed. Tenant’s claims for compensation Property management
The tenancy was initially managed by a property manager as agent for the owner. However, with effect from 20 June 2024, the owner ended the agency and managed the property herself from that date onwards. She provided evidence proving the date the agency ended and of her advising the tenant to redirect his rent payments to her bank account.
The tenant alleges that from this point onwards and for the remaining 12 months of the tenancy he managed the property by taking over responsibility for maintenance required at the property. He seeks $1200 for his time spent managing the premises in this respect. He notes that he is a licensed building practitioner and wanted to ensure that the property was well maintained.
The landlord denies that she appointed the tenant to manage the property and/or to carry out maintenance of the property for any sort of management fee. There is no written agreement between the parties nor any other evidence (such as emails or texts) of the parties agreeing to the tenant managing the property for any fee.
As I explained at the hearing, while the tenant may have on his own initiative taken care of some maintenance at the property, he is not entitled to recover any compensation for work done without the landlord’s express knowledge and agreement, which would include an agreement as to the scope of the work and amount charged.
The tenant’s claim for compensation as a “property manager” is not proved and is dismissed. Compensation for supervising leak repairs
The tenant says that he took 2 days off work to supervise plumbers attending the premises to fix a burst pipe in the ceiling above the laundry (a water cylinder leak) on 2 separate occasions in June and November 2024. He seeks compensation of $1,320, being 2 days wages.
The landlord says that the tenant did not advise her that he intended to take time off work and nor did she ask him to do so. She provided evidence which establishes that the first leak occurred in or about 11 June 2024 and the plumbing repairs and appointment of ChemDry to dry out the affected areas was handled by the Property Managers still acting for her at the time. They handled the attendances by those contractors and there was no expectation, request, or agreement that the tenant needed to supervise the contractors.
The landlord also provided evidence of subsequent text messages with the tenant in which he offered to re-gib the hole in the wall left after the first leak was repaired. The landlord requested a quote for the work which the tenant provided and the landlord accepted. There is no dispute that the tenant did this work, issued an invoice for $400, which was paid by the landlord.
A second leak occurred in the same area on 21 November 2024. The landlord provided text messages which prove that the tenant advised her about the leak; she arranged for a plumber to come the same day after hours in the evening; and the leak was fixed the same day. The landlord says that she telephoned the tenant to confirm that a plumber would attend and to check whether he would be home or could leave a key out. He advised her that he would be home. Again, there was no expectation, request, or agreement that the tenant was required to be there and would be paid for his time “supervising” the work.
The landlord notes that the tenant offered to do other jobs for her (such as re- gibbing the wall mentioned above and painting the deck). In those cases, the tenant gave her a quote for the work which she accepted. Once the work was completed, the tenant sent the landlord an invoice which the landlord paid. In other words, the landlord’s evidence is that in relation to any maintenance work completed by the tenant, the scope and cost of the work was agreed first and she paid the tenant for the agreed work. Other claims now raised by the tenant were not agreed.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord did not agree to the tenant taking time off work at her cost to supervise any of the leak repair works completed by the plumbers and ChemDry and she is not liable to reimburse the tenant for his lost wages. I am also satisfied that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the landlord breached her obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, including an obligation to repair the leaks notified by the tenant in a reasonable time, as required under section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). For the reasons given, the tenant’s claim for compensation regarding the water leaks is dismissed. Compensation for fence repair
There was a missing paling on the boundary fence along a shared driveway between this property and the neighbouring property. The fence is on Council land. The parties talked about having it repaired. The landlord advised the tenant that she would seek advice from Council about it. In the meantime, the tenant says that the fence fell away from its fixings and protruded approximately
5 metres onto the driveway. He fixed the fence and seeks $3,000 from the landlord for the repair costs including materials and labour. The tenant advised that he has no photos of the fence when it fell away; there are no messages in writing of him advising the landlord of the issue, there is no agreement in writing with the landlord for him to fix the fence at a cost of $3,000; and he has not provided an invoice for the work.
The landlord says the tenant did not notify her that the fence had fallen away and she simply received a text message from him on 28 August 2024 advising that he had fixed the fence “last weekend.” She took this to mean that he had fixed the one missing fence paling which they had discussed.
As discussed at the hearing, the tenant has a duty to advise the landlord as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair (see section 40(1)(d) RTA), at which point the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair the defect in a reasonable time frame (see section 45(1)(b) RTA). However, the tenant has no right to conduct repairs and seek reimbursement from the landlord before notifying the landlord and giving the landlord an opportunity to address the matter first. Notably, section 45 (1)(d) RTA only requires the landlord to compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where: the state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent; and the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant did not advise the landlord of the fence damage nor seek her agreement to him fixing it for $3,000. The landlord is therefore not liable for those costs. For those reasons, the claim for $3,000 to repair the fence is dismissed. Compensation for door handle repair
There was a broken front door handle at the property which the parties agreed the tenant would fix. Again, the tenant issued the landlord an invoice for the cost of the handle which was paid. The tenant now claims his labour at a cost of $500 which he did not initially claim in the invoice.
The landlord agrees the tenant offered to fix the door handle and she agreed to pay his invoice for the handle. There was no other agreement to pay $500 for labour.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant has not proved that the landlord is liable for $500 labour costs to fix the door handle and she paid his invoice for the handle as agreed. The claim is dismissed. Suppression and filing fee
In summary, all of the tenant’s claims for compensation are not proved and are dismissed. As the landlord has substantially succeeded in the proceedings she is entitled to suppression of her name and identifying details as requested and to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298605 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298605 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions