What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4714590?

The tribunal order states: Leah Andrea Harding and Stuart Neil Clark to pay Udy Realty Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4714590?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $121.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4714590?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4714590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10084817-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4714590?

The tribunal order states: Leah Andrea Harding and Stuart Neil Clark to pay Udy Realty Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4714590?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $121.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4714590?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4714590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10084817-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 41 Quebec Road, Milford, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4714590 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4714590 — net $100.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (for 19/08/2023	$121.43		Rent arrears (for 19/08/2023
Filing Fee Reimbursement		$20.44	Filing Fee Reimbursement
Total award	$121.43	$20.44
Net award	$100.99
Bond	$115.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.99

Order

Leah Andrea Harding and Stuart Neil Clark to pay Udy Realty Limited As Agent For Crosby Family Trust Tracey Wheeler $100.99 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $115.00 (5962766-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Udy Realty Limited As Agent For Crosby Family Trust Tracey Wheeler: $100.99 Leah Andrea Harding and Stuart Neil Clark: $14.01

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants made a claim for a refund of the $115.00 bond that is still being held by the Bond Centre because of a dispute between the parties over a plumber’s call out fee of $109.25.
The landlord made a cross application for rent arrears, compensation for the plumber’s call out fee, refund of the remainder of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 19 August 2023. The tenants were not aware that their rental period went from Saturday to Friday. As they had always paid their rent on a Monday, they believed their rental period went from a Sunday to a Saturday. Therefore, they were not aware that they owed an additional day of rent at the end of the tenancy.
The property manager confirmed during the hearing that she had not raised the rent arrears with the tenants, as there had been other issues to resolve with them and as a result this was overlooked until after the mediation, at which time the property manager thought it better to deal with the rent arrears issue at the same time as the plumber’s call out fee.
The tenants were shocked to learn that they owed any rent, and confirmed they would have paid it immediately if they had been informed of the debt. On seeing the rent summary provided during the hearing, they agreed the day’s rent of $121.43 was owing to the landlord. Is the tenant liable for the plumber’s call out costs?
Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA states “the landlord shall provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the RTA confirms “the landlord shall compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where (i) 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 (ii) the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so”.
The landlord argued: a. The expense incurred by the tenants was not in “repairing the premises” but because of an unnecessary call out for a leak that never existed and did not require any repair; b. The tenants incorrectly carried out basic leak test by observing the water metre when no water was in use in the house; c. Had the leak test been carried out correctly, the landlord would not have incurred the $109.25 call out fee; and d. The tenants should pay for the call out fee as there were no leaks identified by the plumber, no indication there was even a slow leak and the tenants high water bills were those based on the estimates rather than the actual readings.
The tenants argued: a. They had been concerned about a water leak back in November/December 2021 and had been advised there may be a leak. They carried out a leak test and the water metre did not move. As a result, they were under a mistaken belief there was no leak. In January 2022, a landscape gardener found a slow leak that was repaired, and the tenants water bills reduced considerably thereafter. As such, they do not believe a basic water leak test is an accurate assessment of whether there is a water leak issue; b. In June 2023, the tenants were again concerned their water bills seemed high. They were concerned there may be new leak. They informed the landlord at the earliest opportunity, as they are obliged to do in accordance with s40(1)(d) of the RTA. The landlord asked them to carry out the basic water leak test and they did as instructed. They went for a walk, after ensuring no water was being used in the house. They took a water metre reading before and after their walk and the water metre had moved. They reported this to the landlord, who agreed to investigate to se if there was any water leak; c. The landlord called a plumber to investigate and repair any leak identified; d. The plumber did not find any leak or any evidence of a slow leak, so there was nothing to repair. e. They should not be liable for the cost of the investigation of what they reasonably believed was another leak at the property.
The word “repair” is not defined in the interpretation section of the RTA (Refer to section 2 of the RTA). The Tribunal is not required to interpret the word repair strictly, as the landlord has done in its arguments, and as such I have read the provision more liberally to mean “to investigate” and to “fix the situation”.
I find: a. The tenants acted on a reasonable belief at the time they called the landlord to report that their basic water leak test, combined with their higher water bills, suggested a leak at the property that needed further investigation to ascertain if there was a leak or not; b. The tenants are not plumbers and cannot be expected to have carried out an accurate and conclusive test that ruled out a water leak; c. The tenants had been let down by a basic water leak test they had carried out in December 2021and so were not confident that the high-water rates bills did not indicate the premises had developed a new leak; d. The tenants did not call the plumber out themselves, without authority from the landlord; e. The landlord arranged for a plumber to investigate the alleged leak, as they had a responsibility to do so to ascertain if any repair was necessary and if an application for a leak rebate for the tenant was warranted. f. It is reasonable that the tenants, not being plumbing experts, suggested the landlord engage a professional to investigate and diagnose the water leak problem that their basic leak test and high-water rates bills led them to conclude, that more likely than not, the premises had a new water leak.
For the reasons outlined above, I order the landlord to pay the $109.25 plumbing invoice and any late penalty payment owing. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with their claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord was successful in their rent arrears claim, but it was an unnecessary claim that could have been avoided by the landlord informing the tenants directly of the outstanding day’s rent in a timelier fashion. Therefore, the landlord’s application for reimbursement of their filing fee is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4714590 — net $100.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (for 19/08/2023	$121.43		Rent arrears (for 19/08/2023
Filing Fee Reimbursement		$20.44	Filing Fee Reimbursement
Total award	$121.43	$20.44
Net award	$100.99
Bond	$115.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.99

Order

Leah Andrea Harding and Stuart Neil Clark to pay Udy Realty Limited As Agent For Crosby Family Trust Tracey Wheeler $100.99 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $115.00 (5962766-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Udy Realty Limited As Agent For Crosby Family Trust Tracey Wheeler: $100.99 Leah Andrea Harding and Stuart Neil Clark: $14.01

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants made a claim for a refund of the $115.00 bond that is still being held by the Bond Centre because of a dispute between the parties over a plumber’s call out fee of $109.25.
The landlord made a cross application for rent arrears, compensation for the plumber’s call out fee, refund of the remainder of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 19 August 2023. The tenants were not aware that their rental period went from Saturday to Friday. As they had always paid their rent on a Monday, they believed their rental period went from a Sunday to a Saturday. Therefore, they were not aware that they owed an additional day of rent at the end of the tenancy.
The property manager confirmed during the hearing that she had not raised the rent arrears with the tenants, as there had been other issues to resolve with them and as a result this was overlooked until after the mediation, at which time the property manager thought it better to deal with the rent arrears issue at the same time as the plumber’s call out fee.
The tenants were shocked to learn that they owed any rent, and confirmed they would have paid it immediately if they had been informed of the debt. On seeing the rent summary provided during the hearing, they agreed the day’s rent of $121.43 was owing to the landlord. Is the tenant liable for the plumber’s call out costs?
Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA states “the landlord shall provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the RTA confirms “the landlord shall compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where (i) 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 (ii) the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so”.
The landlord argued: a. The expense incurred by the tenants was not in “repairing the premises” but because of an unnecessary call out for a leak that never existed and did not require any repair; b. The tenants incorrectly carried out basic leak test by observing the water metre when no water was in use in the house; c. Had the leak test been carried out correctly, the landlord would not have incurred the $109.25 call out fee; and d. The tenants should pay for the call out fee as there were no leaks identified by the plumber, no indication there was even a slow leak and the tenants high water bills were those based on the estimates rather than the actual readings.
The tenants argued: a. They had been concerned about a water leak back in November/December 2021 and had been advised there may be a leak. They carried out a leak test and the water metre did not move. As a result, they were under a mistaken belief there was no leak. In January 2022, a landscape gardener found a slow leak that was repaired, and the tenants water bills reduced considerably thereafter. As such, they do not believe a basic water leak test is an accurate assessment of whether there is a water leak issue; b. In June 2023, the tenants were again concerned their water bills seemed high. They were concerned there may be new leak. They informed the landlord at the earliest opportunity, as they are obliged to do in accordance with s40(1)(d) of the RTA. The landlord asked them to carry out the basic water leak test and they did as instructed. They went for a walk, after ensuring no water was being used in the house. They took a water metre reading before and after their walk and the water metre had moved. They reported this to the landlord, who agreed to investigate to se if there was any water leak; c. The landlord called a plumber to investigate and repair any leak identified; d. The plumber did not find any leak or any evidence of a slow leak, so there was nothing to repair. e. They should not be liable for the cost of the investigation of what they reasonably believed was another leak at the property.
The word “repair” is not defined in the interpretation section of the RTA (Refer to section 2 of the RTA). The Tribunal is not required to interpret the word repair strictly, as the landlord has done in its arguments, and as such I have read the provision more liberally to mean “to investigate” and to “fix the situation”.
I find: a. The tenants acted on a reasonable belief at the time they called the landlord to report that their basic water leak test, combined with their higher water bills, suggested a leak at the property that needed further investigation to ascertain if there was a leak or not; b. The tenants are not plumbers and cannot be expected to have carried out an accurate and conclusive test that ruled out a water leak; c. The tenants had been let down by a basic water leak test they had carried out in December 2021and so were not confident that the high-water rates bills did not indicate the premises had developed a new leak; d. The tenants did not call the plumber out themselves, without authority from the landlord; e. The landlord arranged for a plumber to investigate the alleged leak, as they had a responsibility to do so to ascertain if any repair was necessary and if an application for a leak rebate for the tenant was warranted. f. It is reasonable that the tenants, not being plumbing experts, suggested the landlord engage a professional to investigate and diagnose the water leak problem that their basic leak test and high-water rates bills led them to conclude, that more likely than not, the premises had a new water leak.
For the reasons outlined above, I order the landlord to pay the $109.25 plumbing invoice and any late penalty payment owing. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with their claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord was successful in their rent arrears claim, but it was an unnecessary claim that could have been avoided by the landlord informing the tenants directly of the outstanding day’s rent in a timelier fashion. Therefore, the landlord’s application for reimbursement of their filing fee is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4714590 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 41 Quebec Road, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4714590 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 41 Quebec Road, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions