What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4635469?

The tribunal order states: Becky Foley must pay Whangarei Real Estate Ltd t/as Harcourts Whangarei (as

How much money was awarded in case 4635469?

Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $451.23 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,165.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $315.93 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4635469?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4635469?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9676565-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4635469?

The tribunal order states: Becky Foley must pay Whangarei Real Estate Ltd t/as Harcourts Whangarei (as

How much money was awarded in case 4635469?

Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $451.23 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,165.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $315.93 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4635469?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4635469?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9676565-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5B Spedding Road, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4635469 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4635469 — net $763.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,165.71	3. The landlord’s application sought rent arrears, water rates arrears, re-glazing of two windows, carpet cleaning, and carpet replacement (insurance excess).
Water rates	$315.93	Water rates
Window repairs	$451.23	Window repairs
Compensation: Damage to carpet	$650.00	Damage to carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	38. This part of the claim is proven.
Net award	$763.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$763.31

Order

Becky Foley must pay Whangarei Real Estate Ltd t/as Harcourts Whangarei (as agent for Euden Investments Limited) $763.31 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (5031308-008) to Whangarei Real Estate Limited immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 30 April 2021 and ended on 24 July 2023.
The tenant’s application alleges that the landlord failed to address a water leak issue that caused extensive damage to the flooring in the house.
The landlord’s application sought rent arrears, water rates arrears, re-glazing of two windows, carpet cleaning, and carpet replacement (insurance excess).
The hearing took place by phone on 8 November 2023. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms Te Raki and Ms Welham represented the landlord.
At the hearing Ms Te Raki withdrew the claim for carpet cleaning. Tenant application
Ms Foley submitted that: a. Her initial Harcourts property manager was Ms Mirales. b. From early in the tenancy, she told Ms Mirales on multiple occasions about softness in the floor in the hallway. c. Harcourts did not take any action until October 2022. There was a leak from a pipe underneath the floor near the hot water cylinder. The leak was repaired and the hallway flooring was replaced. d. In November 2022, she pointed out to Ms Mirales that there was also a hole developing in the bathroom floor and softness in the bedroom floor. e. Harcourts did not take any action. Ms Te Raki and Ms Welham took over from Ms Mirales. f. In May 2023 she received notice from the landlord to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that extensive repairs were required.
Ms Foley argued that if Harcourts had taken action when she first informed them about softness in the floor in 2021, then the problem would not have developed to the extent that the flooring in several parts of the house was badly compromised, which ultimately led to the end of her tenancy.
Ms Te Raki submitted that: a. They have no record of Ms Foley raising an issue with softness in the floor in the hall. b. The damage was discovered during a property inspection in October 2022. c. No such damage was noted in any prior inspections. d. Harcourts promptly arranged for the problem to be investigated. The plumber discovered a leaking pipe underneath the floor near the hot water cylinder. The leak was repaired, and the hallway flooring was replaced. e. Harcourts has no record of being advised of the hole in the bathroom floor in November 2022 f. Harcourts became aware of the hole in the bathroom floor in April 2023. g. Investigation into that problem showed extensive water damage to the floor in the bathroom, necessitating replacement of the entire bathroom floor. The work could not be safely carried out with Ms Foley and her young child in the property. It was necessary to terminate the tenancy. h. When the repairs were done, they discovered further water damage to the flooring in the toilet and the laundry, but there was no damage to the flooring in the bedroom, and no work was carried out there. i. No new leaks were discovered.
Ms Foley submitted that her communication to Ms Mirales was verbal. She talked to Ms Mirales during property inspections. There are no text or email messages.
Landlords have a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. However, landlords are usually not aware of the need for repairs until the tenant lets them know.
In this instance it is disputed and not proven that Ms Foley informed Ms Mirales about the soft flooring in the hallway.
It would be very surprising if Ms Foley informed Ms Mirales about that problem multiple times and Ms Mirales failed to take action. Property managers have a duty to their owners to prevent damage to the property. A soft floor can only mean water damage, most likely from a leak. This is a high priority repair issue for obvious reasons. It would be remarkable if Ms Mirales ignored or simply forgot about this.
At the hearing I heard evidence from Ms Foley’s brother, Quentin, who was staying at the property in November 2022. Quentin supported Ms Foley’s statement that she pointed out the damaged floor in the bathroom at the time. Quentin also submitted that he was staying the bedroom where there was a soft floor due to water damage.
I do not find this evidence persuasive. Again, I do not accept that Ms Mirales would have failed to take action if she was aware of water damage to the flooring in the bathroom. At that time, November 2022, the flooring in the hallway had only just been replaced. Ms Mirales would have been very vigilant about water damage to flooring in other parts of the property.
I also note that the extensive investigation and repair of water damaged flooring in the property did not identify any water damage in the bedroom. This directly contradicts Quentin’s statement.
It is not proven that Ms Foley informed Harcourts about damage to the floor in the hall before October 2022 or about damage to the floor in the bathroom before April 2023.
Harcourts responded promptly and appropriately to the damage in the hallway floor and the bathroom floor when these issues were brought to their attention.
Harcourts had grounds to terminate the tenancy on the basis that extensive repairs were necessary and the work could not be done with the tenant in situ.
Harcourts met its legal duty. There is no basis for an award of compensation or exemplary damages to Ms Foley. Landlord application Rent arrears and water rates
The claim for rent arrears to the date that Ms Foley vacated the premises is proven.
Ms Foley’s only dispute about the water rates claim is that some water was lost through the leak.
Tenants do not pay for water that they do not consume.
It is very difficult to assess the amount of water that was lost through the leak. The amount of water was sufficient to cause extensive damage to the flooring, but it was a slow steady leak. The council charges for water on a cubic metre basis. One cubic metre is a thousand litres of water. The current charge is $3.21 per m3.
Harcourts previously offered to deduct $100.00 from the water rates to account for water lost through the leak.
I am satisfied that a deduction of $100.00 is fair and reasonable. This represents approximately 31,000 litres of water, which is about half a standard size swimming pool. Windows
The claim is for re-glazing of two glass panes.
Ms Foley clarified that the panes were not broken intentionally, but she acknowledged that she is liable for the re-glazing cost.
The cost claimed is proven. Carpet in lounge
The carpet in the lounge was heavily stained at the end of the tenancy.
Ms Foley submitted that there was a serious incident at the property in November 2022. On that day, numerous police officers entered the house. They were there for several hours. Ms Foley submitted that the police officers did extensive fingerprinting and the black powdery substance that they use, along with the police officers’ boots, is what has stained / damaged the lounge carpet floor.
Tenants are liable for damage that is caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent.
Ms Te Raki submitted that the stains looked more like coffee. She submitted that Harcourts did an inspection in January 2023 and the extent of staining / damage that was present at that inspection was much less than was present at the end of the tenancy.
I accept Ms Foley’s statement that some of the deterioration of the carpet occurred during the incident that she described.
However, Harcourts’ inspection report from January 2023 shows that the extent of damage shown in the end of tenancy photos was not present at that time.
The extent of staining on the lounge carpet justified replacement of it.
The claim does not seek the full cost of replacement, but a portion of it, being the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess ($650.00).
On the evidence available to me, I am satisfied that this is a reasonable reflection of the portion of the staining / deterioration that the tenant is responsible for.
This part of the claim is proven. Filing fee, bond
The landlord has been successful in its application, and I must award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.
The amount owed by the tenant exceeds the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord. N Blake, 23 November 2023

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4635469 — net $763.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,165.71	3. The landlord’s application sought rent arrears, water rates arrears, re-glazing of two windows, carpet cleaning, and carpet replacement (insurance excess).
Water rates	$315.93	Water rates
Window repairs	$451.23	Window repairs
Compensation: Damage to carpet	$650.00	Damage to carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	38. This part of the claim is proven.
Net award	$763.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$763.31

Order

Becky Foley must pay Whangarei Real Estate Ltd t/as Harcourts Whangarei (as agent for Euden Investments Limited) $763.31 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (5031308-008) to Whangarei Real Estate Limited immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 30 April 2021 and ended on 24 July 2023.
The tenant’s application alleges that the landlord failed to address a water leak issue that caused extensive damage to the flooring in the house.
The landlord’s application sought rent arrears, water rates arrears, re-glazing of two windows, carpet cleaning, and carpet replacement (insurance excess).
The hearing took place by phone on 8 November 2023. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms Te Raki and Ms Welham represented the landlord.
At the hearing Ms Te Raki withdrew the claim for carpet cleaning. Tenant application
Ms Foley submitted that: a. Her initial Harcourts property manager was Ms Mirales. b. From early in the tenancy, she told Ms Mirales on multiple occasions about softness in the floor in the hallway. c. Harcourts did not take any action until October 2022. There was a leak from a pipe underneath the floor near the hot water cylinder. The leak was repaired and the hallway flooring was replaced. d. In November 2022, she pointed out to Ms Mirales that there was also a hole developing in the bathroom floor and softness in the bedroom floor. e. Harcourts did not take any action. Ms Te Raki and Ms Welham took over from Ms Mirales. f. In May 2023 she received notice from the landlord to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that extensive repairs were required.
Ms Foley argued that if Harcourts had taken action when she first informed them about softness in the floor in 2021, then the problem would not have developed to the extent that the flooring in several parts of the house was badly compromised, which ultimately led to the end of her tenancy.
Ms Te Raki submitted that: a. They have no record of Ms Foley raising an issue with softness in the floor in the hall. b. The damage was discovered during a property inspection in October 2022. c. No such damage was noted in any prior inspections. d. Harcourts promptly arranged for the problem to be investigated. The plumber discovered a leaking pipe underneath the floor near the hot water cylinder. The leak was repaired, and the hallway flooring was replaced. e. Harcourts has no record of being advised of the hole in the bathroom floor in November 2022 f. Harcourts became aware of the hole in the bathroom floor in April 2023. g. Investigation into that problem showed extensive water damage to the floor in the bathroom, necessitating replacement of the entire bathroom floor. The work could not be safely carried out with Ms Foley and her young child in the property. It was necessary to terminate the tenancy. h. When the repairs were done, they discovered further water damage to the flooring in the toilet and the laundry, but there was no damage to the flooring in the bedroom, and no work was carried out there. i. No new leaks were discovered.
Ms Foley submitted that her communication to Ms Mirales was verbal. She talked to Ms Mirales during property inspections. There are no text or email messages.
Landlords have a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. However, landlords are usually not aware of the need for repairs until the tenant lets them know.
In this instance it is disputed and not proven that Ms Foley informed Ms Mirales about the soft flooring in the hallway.
It would be very surprising if Ms Foley informed Ms Mirales about that problem multiple times and Ms Mirales failed to take action. Property managers have a duty to their owners to prevent damage to the property. A soft floor can only mean water damage, most likely from a leak. This is a high priority repair issue for obvious reasons. It would be remarkable if Ms Mirales ignored or simply forgot about this.
At the hearing I heard evidence from Ms Foley’s brother, Quentin, who was staying at the property in November 2022. Quentin supported Ms Foley’s statement that she pointed out the damaged floor in the bathroom at the time. Quentin also submitted that he was staying the bedroom where there was a soft floor due to water damage.
I do not find this evidence persuasive. Again, I do not accept that Ms Mirales would have failed to take action if she was aware of water damage to the flooring in the bathroom. At that time, November 2022, the flooring in the hallway had only just been replaced. Ms Mirales would have been very vigilant about water damage to flooring in other parts of the property.
I also note that the extensive investigation and repair of water damaged flooring in the property did not identify any water damage in the bedroom. This directly contradicts Quentin’s statement.
It is not proven that Ms Foley informed Harcourts about damage to the floor in the hall before October 2022 or about damage to the floor in the bathroom before April 2023.
Harcourts responded promptly and appropriately to the damage in the hallway floor and the bathroom floor when these issues were brought to their attention.
Harcourts had grounds to terminate the tenancy on the basis that extensive repairs were necessary and the work could not be done with the tenant in situ.
Harcourts met its legal duty. There is no basis for an award of compensation or exemplary damages to Ms Foley. Landlord application Rent arrears and water rates
The claim for rent arrears to the date that Ms Foley vacated the premises is proven.
Ms Foley’s only dispute about the water rates claim is that some water was lost through the leak.
Tenants do not pay for water that they do not consume.
It is very difficult to assess the amount of water that was lost through the leak. The amount of water was sufficient to cause extensive damage to the flooring, but it was a slow steady leak. The council charges for water on a cubic metre basis. One cubic metre is a thousand litres of water. The current charge is $3.21 per m3.
Harcourts previously offered to deduct $100.00 from the water rates to account for water lost through the leak.
I am satisfied that a deduction of $100.00 is fair and reasonable. This represents approximately 31,000 litres of water, which is about half a standard size swimming pool. Windows
The claim is for re-glazing of two glass panes.
Ms Foley clarified that the panes were not broken intentionally, but she acknowledged that she is liable for the re-glazing cost.
The cost claimed is proven. Carpet in lounge
The carpet in the lounge was heavily stained at the end of the tenancy.
Ms Foley submitted that there was a serious incident at the property in November 2022. On that day, numerous police officers entered the house. They were there for several hours. Ms Foley submitted that the police officers did extensive fingerprinting and the black powdery substance that they use, along with the police officers’ boots, is what has stained / damaged the lounge carpet floor.
Tenants are liable for damage that is caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent.
Ms Te Raki submitted that the stains looked more like coffee. She submitted that Harcourts did an inspection in January 2023 and the extent of staining / damage that was present at that inspection was much less than was present at the end of the tenancy.
I accept Ms Foley’s statement that some of the deterioration of the carpet occurred during the incident that she described.
However, Harcourts’ inspection report from January 2023 shows that the extent of damage shown in the end of tenancy photos was not present at that time.
The extent of staining on the lounge carpet justified replacement of it.
The claim does not seek the full cost of replacement, but a portion of it, being the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess ($650.00).
On the evidence available to me, I am satisfied that this is a reasonable reflection of the portion of the staining / deterioration that the tenant is responsible for.
This part of the claim is proven. Filing fee, bond
The landlord has been successful in its application, and I must award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.
The amount owed by the tenant exceeds the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord. N Blake, 23 November 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4635469 — Rent arrears at 5B Spedding Road, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4635469 — Rent arrears at 5B Spedding Road, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions