How much money was awarded in case 5483049?

Compensation: Unblock Toilet: $327.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5483049?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5483049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13704946-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5483049?

Compensation: Unblock Toilet: $327.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5483049?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5483049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13704946-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 24 Selwyn Road, Cockle Bay, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5483049 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5483049 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5483049 — net $355.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation: unblock toilet	$327.75	unblock toilet
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$355.75
Bond	$2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$355.75

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $355.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $355.75 [The tenant/s]: $2,164.25

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for costs associated with the early end of the fixed term was withdrawn at the hearing.

The tenant opposes the landlord’s compensation claims and requests a full refund of her bond.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord claims for water rates for the final part month of the tenancy having apportioned the final invoice as a final water reading could not be obtained.

The tenant has paid all water rates except for the final invoice; she submits that as the landlord cannot apportion the final bill accurately (between her and the new tenants) she is not liable to pay it.

The provisions of s39 (3) and (4) are conclusive and mean the landlord’s claim must be dismissed. The sections state that unless a landlord can attribute the amounts claimed for outgoings (specifically including water) exclusively to the tenant’s occupation the amounts cannot be awarded.

In practise this means the landlord must obtain a final reading at the end of a tenancy (via an accurate meter) and unless they do so, cannot charge the tenant for any part of the invoice.

The Tribunal cannot make the order the landlord is requesting, and the claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of unblocking the toile pump?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

I am satisfied that the new toilet “sanismart” pump installed at the commencement of the tenancy was blocked by wet wipes put into the toilet during the tenancy and required repair at the end of the tenancy.

Putting wet wipes into the toilet was a breach of cl 16 of the tenancy agreement (which specifically noted that only toilet tissue should be put into the toilet as wet wipes may cause blockages) and that the tenant agreed not to do this.

The photographs and report from the plumber establish that it was wet wipes that caused the damage. In the context of this tenancy putting wet wipes into the toilet system was therefore “careless”.

The tenant is responsible for damage caused by the carelessness of persons occupying the premises with her permission, including the flatmate that used the toilet for a period of time.

The evidence of the new tenants, to the effect that they discovered the blocked toilet as soon as they started to use the toilet, and reported it promptly, establishes that it is likely the pump was blocked during the tenancy (and not later after the tenancy ended as the tenant submitted was possible).

The amount ordered to rectify the damage is proved.

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

I have approved both parties request for name suppression as there is negligible public interest in publishing either name in the circumstances outlined here (and potential prejudice to both parties).

In doing so I note the Tribunal’s discretion as regards name suppression and that neither suppression order was opposed by either party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5483049 — net $355.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation: unblock toilet	$327.75	unblock toilet
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$355.75
Bond	$2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$355.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $355.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $355.75 [The tenant/s]: $2,164.25

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for costs associated with the early end of the fixed term was withdrawn at the hearing.
The tenant opposes the landlord’s compensation claims and requests a full refund of her bond.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord claims for water rates for the final part month of the tenancy having apportioned the final invoice as a final water reading could not be obtained.
The tenant has paid all water rates except for the final invoice; she submits that as the landlord cannot apportion the final bill accurately (between her and the new tenants) she is not liable to pay it.
The provisions of s39 (3) and (4) are conclusive and mean the landlord’s claim must be dismissed. The sections state that unless a landlord can attribute the amounts claimed for outgoings (specifically including water) exclusively to the tenant’s occupation the amounts cannot be awarded.
In practise this means the landlord must obtain a final reading at the end of a tenancy (via an accurate meter) and unless they do so, cannot charge the tenant for any part of the invoice.
The Tribunal cannot make the order the landlord is requesting, and the claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of unblocking the toile pump?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
I am satisfied that the new toilet “sanismart” pump installed at the commencement of the tenancy was blocked by wet wipes put into the toilet during the tenancy and required repair at the end of the tenancy.
Putting wet wipes into the toilet was a breach of cl 16 of the tenancy agreement (which specifically noted that only toilet tissue should be put into the toilet as wet wipes may cause blockages) and that the tenant agreed not to do this.
The photographs and report from the plumber establish that it was wet wipes that caused the damage. In the context of this tenancy putting wet wipes into the toilet system was therefore “careless”.
The tenant is responsible for damage caused by the carelessness of persons occupying the premises with her permission, including the flatmate that used the toilet for a period of time.
The evidence of the new tenants, to the effect that they discovered the blocked toilet as soon as they started to use the toilet, and reported it promptly, establishes that it is likely the pump was blocked during the tenancy (and not later after the tenancy ended as the tenant submitted was possible).
The amount ordered to rectify the damage is proved.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
I have approved both parties request for name suppression as there is negligible public interest in publishing either name in the circumstances outlined here (and potential prejudice to both parties).
In doing so I note the Tribunal’s discretion as regards name suppression and that neither suppression order was opposed by either party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5483049 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 24 Selwyn Road, Cockle Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5483049 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 24 Selwyn Road, Cockle Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of unblocking the toile pump?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of unblocking the toile pump?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions