What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5305124 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5305124?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5305124?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5305124?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12492435-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5305124 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5305124?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5305124?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5305124?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12492435-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Opal Avenue, Timberlea, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5305124 — State of repair

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenants’ application has been made to recover the cost of keeping the spa pool clean during the tenancy.

The tenants made the application following a decision by the Tribunal in applications 5095709 and 5061768. In those cases between the same parties, the issue of responsibility for damage to the spa pool had been an issue in the claim. In paras 19 and 20 of the decision the adjudicator stated that “They (the parties) referred to the clause in the tenancy agreement (clause 19) which placed responsibility on the tenants to maintain the spa pool and any work required is to be at the tenants’ cost. A tenant is not required to maintain the premises (including chattels provided for their benefit). This obligation rests with the landlord pursuant to section 45 of the Act and any clause in a tenancy agreement that places a greater obligation on a tenant than the obligations imposed by the Act is unenforceable: section 11 of the Act”.

The tenants understood the decision to mean that they did not have responsibility for cleaning the pool water and related cleaning costs such as pool water checking. However the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is clear that the landlord’s responsibility is to maintain the premises including chattels and tenant’s responsibilities are to keep the premises and chattels reasonably clean. (see section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

For that reason, the tenants’ application must be dismissed.

The landlord has claimed compensation for damage to parts of the spa pool filter system. However the damage to the spa pool has already been litigated in application 5095709. The matter of damage to the parts of the spa pool was known at the time application 5095709 was lodged. The Tribunal decision on 4 July addresses the landlord’s claim for damage to the spa pool.

Res judicata (Latin for "a matter decided") is a legal doctrine that prevents a claim that has already been finally adjudicated in a court or tribunal from being relitigated between the same parties. This principle ensures judicial efficiency and consistency by ensuring the finality of judgments and preventing repetitive lawsuits over the same issue.

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the landlord’s further claim for damage to the spa pool. All claims regarding the spa pool should have been brought in application 5095709.

The landlord’s claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction. Suppression and the filing fee

The parties have applied for name suppression and the filing fee.

Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides 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.

Neither party has substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is not granted. Neither party succeeded with their claim and no order is made regarding the filing fees

Order

The tenants’ application is dismissed. The landlord’s cross application is struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants’ application has been made to recover the cost of keeping the spa pool clean during the tenancy.
The tenants made the application following a decision by the Tribunal in applications 5095709 and 5061768. In those cases between the same parties, the issue of responsibility for damage to the spa pool had been an issue in the claim. In paras 19 and 20 of the decision the adjudicator stated that “They (the parties) referred to the clause in the tenancy agreement (clause 19) which placed responsibility on the tenants to maintain the spa pool and any work required is to be at the tenants’ cost. A tenant is not required to maintain the premises (including chattels provided for their benefit). This obligation rests with the landlord pursuant to section 45 of the Act and any clause in a tenancy agreement that places a greater obligation on a tenant than the obligations imposed by the Act is unenforceable: section 11 of the Act”.
The tenants understood the decision to mean that they did not have responsibility for cleaning the pool water and related cleaning costs such as pool water checking. However the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is clear that the landlord’s responsibility is to maintain the premises including chattels and tenant’s responsibilities are to keep the premises and chattels reasonably clean. (see section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
For that reason, the tenants’ application must be dismissed.
The landlord has claimed compensation for damage to parts of the spa pool filter system. However the damage to the spa pool has already been litigated in application 5095709. The matter of damage to the parts of the spa pool was known at the time application 5095709 was lodged. The Tribunal decision on 4 July addresses the landlord’s claim for damage to the spa pool.
Res judicata (Latin for "a matter decided") is a legal doctrine that prevents a claim that has already been finally adjudicated in a court or tribunal from being relitigated between the same parties. This principle ensures judicial efficiency and consistency by ensuring the finality of judgments and preventing repetitive lawsuits over the same issue.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the landlord’s further claim for damage to the spa pool. All claims regarding the spa pool should have been brought in application 5095709.
The landlord’s claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction. Suppression and the filing fee
The parties have applied for name suppression and the filing fee.
Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides 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.
Neither party has substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is not granted. Neither party succeeded with their claim and no order is made regarding the filing fees

Tenancy Tribunal case 5305124 — State of repair at 15 Opal Avenue, Timberlea, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5305124 — State of repair at 15 Opal Avenue, Timberlea, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.