What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4775839?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4775839?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4775839?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4775839?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10196127-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4775839?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4775839?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4775839?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4775839?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10196127-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

224A Cannon Hill Crescent, Mount Pleasant, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4775839 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The Landlord has applied for reimbursement of an electrical call out fee ($425.50) to the property on 22 September 2024.

An applicant has the onus of proving its claim. A party claiming compensation must first establish a breach by other party.

In this case, the landlord did not allege a breach of any obligation under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Rather, the landlord says that the tenant is liable for the callout fee under clause 12 of the tenancy agreement.

The relevant part of clause 12 provides that the tenant agrees to pay any reasonable call out charge where the repairs are due to some damage or negligence by the tenant. 1

The landlord claims that the tenants were negligent in failing to follow up with their chosen electricity provider when they did not receive an email (or other notification) confirming that a power account had been set up in their name for these premises.

This tenancy commenced on 15 September 2023. The tenants were offered the tenancy on 14 September 2023 and applied for a power account to the premises on the same day. They completed the request for power through an online portal recommended by Braziers.

The tenants provided screen shots of the messages from the portal on 15 September recording that the application was being processed (11:27am) and had been successfully submitted (11:30am).

The power was on when the tenants moved into the property on 15 September 2023. There were no issues until power went out at the property on 21 September 2023. The tenants contacted their chosen power provider, after the power went out, and were advised that an account had not been set up in their names because the line/connection had not been relinquished by the previous tenant’s power provider. The tenant’s power supplier could not help because it could not access the line or connection.

The tenants then contacted the landlord who arranged an after-hours callout by an electrician. The electrician discovered that the power had been physically disconnected. It transpires that the disconnection had been carried out by a contractor engaged by the previous tenant’s power provider because that account had not been properly shut. The reason is immaterial to whether theses tenants have breached any obligation to the landlord.

Power was reinstated and an account set up by the tenants, with their chosen supplier.

The landlord pursued the tenants for the cost of the callout fee. The landlord raised various arguments and relied on “hearsay” advice from both the previous tenant and its power provider. In particular, the landlord alleged that the tenant had received notice of the possible termination from the previous power provider. There was no such advice. The only communication was a postcard advising the tenants inviting them to sign up with the previous tenant’s supplier. 1 I am not satisfied that this clause is enforceable under s11 RTA, in that it purports to impose obligations on the tenant which are inconsistent with its obligations under the RTA. However, neither party addressed me on that issue, and I have considered the application as if Clause 12 of the agreement is enforceable.

The landlord has failed to establish any breach or negligence by the tenants in setting up (or attempting to set up) their power account. The tenants have acted reasonably and consistent with recommendations provided by Braziers.

The claim is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Landlord has applied for reimbursement of an electrical call out fee ($425.50) to the property on 22 September 2024.
An applicant has the onus of proving its claim. A party claiming compensation must first establish a breach by other party.
In this case, the landlord did not allege a breach of any obligation under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Rather, the landlord says that the tenant is liable for the callout fee under clause 12 of the tenancy agreement.
The relevant part of clause 12 provides that the tenant agrees to pay any reasonable call out charge where the repairs are due to some damage or negligence by the tenant. 1
The landlord claims that the tenants were negligent in failing to follow up with their chosen electricity provider when they did not receive an email (or other notification) confirming that a power account had been set up in their name for these premises.
This tenancy commenced on 15 September 2023. The tenants were offered the tenancy on 14 September 2023 and applied for a power account to the premises on the same day. They completed the request for power through an online portal recommended by Braziers.
The tenants provided screen shots of the messages from the portal on 15 September recording that the application was being processed (11:27am) and had been successfully submitted (11:30am).
The power was on when the tenants moved into the property on 15 September 2023. There were no issues until power went out at the property on 21 September 2023. The tenants contacted their chosen power provider, after the power went out, and were advised that an account had not been set up in their names because the line/connection had not been relinquished by the previous tenant’s power provider. The tenant’s power supplier could not help because it could not access the line or connection.
The tenants then contacted the landlord who arranged an after-hours callout by an electrician. The electrician discovered that the power had been physically disconnected. It transpires that the disconnection had been carried out by a contractor engaged by the previous tenant’s power provider because that account had not been properly shut. The reason is immaterial to whether theses tenants have breached any obligation to the landlord.
Power was reinstated and an account set up by the tenants, with their chosen supplier.
The landlord pursued the tenants for the cost of the callout fee. The landlord raised various arguments and relied on “hearsay” advice from both the previous tenant and its power provider. In particular, the landlord alleged that the tenant had received notice of the possible termination from the previous power provider. There was no such advice. The only communication was a postcard advising the tenants inviting them to sign up with the previous tenant’s supplier. 1 I am not satisfied that this clause is enforceable under s11 RTA, in that it purports to impose obligations on the tenant which are inconsistent with its obligations under the RTA. However, neither party addressed me on that issue, and I have considered the application as if Clause 12 of the agreement is enforceable.
The landlord has failed to establish any breach or negligence by the tenants in setting up (or attempting to set up) their power account. The tenants have acted reasonably and consistent with recommendations provided by Braziers.
The claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4775839 — Tenancy dispute at 224A Cannon Hill Crescent, Mount Pleasant, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4775839 — Tenancy dispute at 224A Cannon Hill Crescent, Mount Pleasant, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions