What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4906360?

The tribunal order states: Tania Hinemoa Hurae, and Yuki Steven Hurae must pay $94.92 to the landlord

How much money was awarded in case 4906360?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4906360?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10660551-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4906360?

The tribunal order states: Tania Hinemoa Hurae, and Yuki Steven Hurae must pay $94.92 to the landlord

How much money was awarded in case 4906360?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4906360?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10660551-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

94 Arimu Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4906360 — Leaks

Order

Tania Hinemoa Hurae, and Yuki Steven Hurae must pay $94.92 to the landlord immediately.
The landlord may dispose of the boat left at the premises by the tenants as the landlord sees fit.
The landlord’s request for name suppression is not granted.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. The tenants were phoned at the time of the hearing, but the call went to voicemail.
The tenancy ended 13 May 2024. Do the tenants owe money to the landlord for water charges.
The landlord has claimed $1,800.69 for unpaid water usage during the tenancy. The applicant’s water charges summary document (the Document) provided in evidence was prepared by a previous property management company. No invoices for water charges have been provided in evidence.
Dates in the Document show water charges and payments from May 2023 to 26 March 2024. The Document shows $3,287.38 to be the amount owed by the tenants as at 26 March 2024. I have considered all the evidence to determine whether the tenants owe that amount.
The landlord stated in the hearing that there has been a deduction from the amount claimed because there was a water leak at the property. Veolia deemed the leak to be the property owner’s responsibility and did not reduce the charge. There was no evidence presented at the hearing to show what the water leak was or that the tenants caused the water leak.
The landlord’s claim for $1,800.69 is made up as follows. Of the $3,287.38 for water accounted for in the Document, the landlord’s Tribunal application is for $2,292.12. The landlord said that the reduced amount claimed was to allow for the water leak at the property. At the end of the tenancy the tenants signed over the bond to the landlord. The bond gave the landlord $491.43 above the rent owed and the landlord applied that to water rates. This reduced the amount claimed by the landlord from $2,292.12 to $1,800.69.
There are problems with the landlords claim. The first is an accounting error in the Document. The second is the high amount charged to the tenants in view of the water leak. Accounting error in the Document.
On 30/10/2023 the Document records that Veolia reversed a charge of $936.46 by transaction 17602. However the Document shows $926.46 was added instead of being deducted from the account. A month later, on 29/11/2023 the Document records that $926.46 added a second time to the account for water from 31/08/2023 to 20/09/2023 making the total charged to the tenants for that period, $1,852.92. On 01/02/2024 someone recognized an error and reversed the $924.46 however because $1,852.92 had been added to the account, $924.46 remained as a charge to the tenants in the Document. The reversed charge remained as an addition to the account. Therefore, the Document is inaccurate for water charges. The adjusted amount at the end of the tenancy in the Document should read $2,362.92. That is the accounting error. The charge made to the tenants after accounting for the leak.
Having considered the charges made to the tenants for water I am satisfied that the tenants have been charged an excessive amount for water, even after taking into account the landlord’s deduction for the water leak.
The Document records enormous charges for monthly water consumption. These charges are consistent with a water leak. The Veolia charges are as follows: 2023 a. 30 April – $425.58 b. 30 May – $739.74 c. June - $248.50 d. 30 July – $106.48 e. 31 Aug – $202.47 f. September $936.46 (reversed by Veolia on 30 Oct but added a second time in the Document) g. October - $518.84 h. November - $797.25 i. December - $860.52 2024 j. January - $6.76
April, May, September, October, November and December show excessive water consumption compared with June, July and August. Without evidence presented by the applicant for charging such high amounts in April, May, September, October, November and December I must estimate usage and apply that figure to all months.
The monthly average for water charges for June, July and August is $185.00. Applying this to all months between April and December 2023 the total for the nine months is $1,665.00. The amounts charged to the tenants recorded in the Document for those months is $3,933.00. The difference is $2,268.00. The $2,268.00 must be viewed as overcharging the tenants for a water leak they did not cause. That amount should be deducted from the total owed after the accounting error. The accounting error adjusted the total that should have been in the Document to $2,362.92. The deduction from this amount for water leak overcharging is $2,268.00. The difference is $94.92.
Based on the evidence available the tenants should pay $94.92 for water to the landlord. Disposal of the boat
The landlord has applied for the disposal of a boat the tenants left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. It is the shell of a boat that is rubbish.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the boat to the tenants. The value of the boat is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore, the landlord may dispose of the boat. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Filing Fee
Because the landlord has not been wholly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is not ordered. Name Suppression
Because the landlord has not been wholly succeeded with the claim, the landlord’s request for name suppression is not granted. (see Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Order

Tania Hinemoa Hurae, and Yuki Steven Hurae must pay $94.92 to the landlord immediately.
The landlord may dispose of the boat left at the premises by the tenants as the landlord sees fit.
The landlord’s request for name suppression is not granted.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. The tenants were phoned at the time of the hearing, but the call went to voicemail.
The tenancy ended 13 May 2024. Do the tenants owe money to the landlord for water charges.
The landlord has claimed $1,800.69 for unpaid water usage during the tenancy. The applicant’s water charges summary document (the Document) provided in evidence was prepared by a previous property management company. No invoices for water charges have been provided in evidence.
Dates in the Document show water charges and payments from May 2023 to 26 March 2024. The Document shows $3,287.38 to be the amount owed by the tenants as at 26 March 2024. I have considered all the evidence to determine whether the tenants owe that amount.
The landlord stated in the hearing that there has been a deduction from the amount claimed because there was a water leak at the property. Veolia deemed the leak to be the property owner’s responsibility and did not reduce the charge. There was no evidence presented at the hearing to show what the water leak was or that the tenants caused the water leak.
The landlord’s claim for $1,800.69 is made up as follows. Of the $3,287.38 for water accounted for in the Document, the landlord’s Tribunal application is for $2,292.12. The landlord said that the reduced amount claimed was to allow for the water leak at the property. At the end of the tenancy the tenants signed over the bond to the landlord. The bond gave the landlord $491.43 above the rent owed and the landlord applied that to water rates. This reduced the amount claimed by the landlord from $2,292.12 to $1,800.69.
There are problems with the landlords claim. The first is an accounting error in the Document. The second is the high amount charged to the tenants in view of the water leak. Accounting error in the Document.
On 30/10/2023 the Document records that Veolia reversed a charge of $936.46 by transaction 17602. However the Document shows $926.46 was added instead of being deducted from the account. A month later, on 29/11/2023 the Document records that $926.46 added a second time to the account for water from 31/08/2023 to 20/09/2023 making the total charged to the tenants for that period, $1,852.92. On 01/02/2024 someone recognized an error and reversed the $924.46 however because $1,852.92 had been added to the account, $924.46 remained as a charge to the tenants in the Document. The reversed charge remained as an addition to the account. Therefore, the Document is inaccurate for water charges. The adjusted amount at the end of the tenancy in the Document should read $2,362.92. That is the accounting error. The charge made to the tenants after accounting for the leak.
Having considered the charges made to the tenants for water I am satisfied that the tenants have been charged an excessive amount for water, even after taking into account the landlord’s deduction for the water leak.
The Document records enormous charges for monthly water consumption. These charges are consistent with a water leak. The Veolia charges are as follows: 2023 a. 30 April – $425.58 b. 30 May – $739.74 c. June - $248.50 d. 30 July – $106.48 e. 31 Aug – $202.47 f. September $936.46 (reversed by Veolia on 30 Oct but added a second time in the Document) g. October - $518.84 h. November - $797.25 i. December - $860.52 2024 j. January - $6.76
April, May, September, October, November and December show excessive water consumption compared with June, July and August. Without evidence presented by the applicant for charging such high amounts in April, May, September, October, November and December I must estimate usage and apply that figure to all months.
The monthly average for water charges for June, July and August is $185.00. Applying this to all months between April and December 2023 the total for the nine months is $1,665.00. The amounts charged to the tenants recorded in the Document for those months is $3,933.00. The difference is $2,268.00. The $2,268.00 must be viewed as overcharging the tenants for a water leak they did not cause. That amount should be deducted from the total owed after the accounting error. The accounting error adjusted the total that should have been in the Document to $2,362.92. The deduction from this amount for water leak overcharging is $2,268.00. The difference is $94.92.
Based on the evidence available the tenants should pay $94.92 for water to the landlord. Disposal of the boat
The landlord has applied for the disposal of a boat the tenants left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. It is the shell of a boat that is rubbish.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the boat to the tenants. The value of the boat is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore, the landlord may dispose of the boat. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Filing Fee
Because the landlord has not been wholly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is not ordered. Name Suppression
Because the landlord has not been wholly succeeded with the claim, the landlord’s request for name suppression is not granted. (see Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4906360 — Leaks at 94 Arimu Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4906360 — Leaks at 94 Arimu Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions