What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4906516?

The tribunal order states: No suppression Order is made.

How much money was awarded in case 4906516?

Compensation: refund fixed water cha…: $711.22 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4906516?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4906516?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11553455-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4906516?

The tribunal order states: No suppression Order is made.

How much money was awarded in case 4906516?

Compensation: refund fixed water cha…: $711.22 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4906516?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4906516?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11553455-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

148 Lake Road, Northcote, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4906516 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4906516 — net $831.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: refund fixed water charges	$711.22	refund fixed water charges
Compensation: tap repair	$100.00	tap repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$831.66
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$831.66

Order

No suppression Order is made.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (6191707-003) to Guirong Zhu immediately.
Jun Shan and Ling Song must pay Guirong Zhu $831.66 immediately, calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mandarin interpretation was provided. Bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.
The landlords say that they expected to be able to have their claims against the bond heard alongside the tenants claims and have only just became aware that they first needed to file a counterclaim. Their evidence is that a counter claim has been filed (5191941), but that claim is not yet visible to me.
I discussed with the parties hearing the landlords’ counterclaims today anyway so all matters in dispute could be determined. The landlords say that they are not in a position to proceed with their claims, having uploaded their evidence and having been told it was unlikely that their claim would be heard today.
I am grateful to the landlords for having acknowledged that it would be unfair to the tenant for his bond to remain held pending determination of the landlord’s claims, when the tenancy ended on 18 April 2024 and the tenants claim was filed on 5 June 2024.
The landlords say their counterclaim exceeds the amount awarded to the tenant in this Order, but they nevertheless consent to the bond being released to the tenant. Water Rates
It is not disputed that throughout the tenancy, the tenant paid the fixed water charges, as well as those based on the tenant’s consumption.
Section 39 RTA only allows a landlord to recover consumption based water charges.
The landlords do not dispute the tenant’s calculation of the fixed charges paid during the tenancy, which should be refunded. Repairs - tap
The tenant claims that the landlords breached their obligation under section 45(1)(b) RTA to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, due to a tap that the tenant was not able to turn of without difficulty, which he says hurt his hand.
The tenant refers to an exchange with Mr Shan on 10 and 11 March 2024 where the tenant notes, “The kitchen water cannot be turned off. I have to use very strong force, then the water stops running. I worried the water tap could be broken”. Mr Shan replied “OK..the time is tight I will fix it when I come back to New Zealand” The tenant’s response is not translated but is to the effect that was Ok with him and not a big problem. Mr Shan confirmed he would be back in New Zealand at the end of April/ early May 2024.
On 31 March 2024 the tenants e-mailed Mr Shan, “The problem of the water taps in the kitchen is getting worse now. Now I need to try many times and very strong force to turn around the water taps so the water could stop running. The landlord replied, “ I will ask someone to check it again after the long weekend.”
Mr Shan says that he had been over at the premises to fix the tap around 4 March 2024. He had a family member go to the property after the tenant’s e- mail on 31 March but they only checked the water meter, not the tap. The landlord also says that when the final inspection was done after the tenancy ended there was no problem with the tap and no issue with it has been raised by the new tenant.
In the Tribunal, claims must be proved on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of definitive evidence, the Tribunal must rely on the best evidence available.
The tenant’s evidence is contemporaneous and consistent. It shows an issue having been raised about the functioning of the tap on 10 March 2024 and again on 31 March 2024. I find it more likely than not that some repair of the tap was necessary for it to be in reasonable working condition.
By failing to attend to that repair, the landlords breached their obligations under s.45(1)(b).
It was a relatively minor issue and the tenancy ended shortly afterward so only modest compensation is due. It does not warrant an award of exemplary damages being made. Appointing an Agent
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims the landlords were overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
The landlords’ position is that while they accept that Mr Shan was out of New Zealand from mid-March 2024 to 27 April 2024, more than 21 days, Ms Song only joined him in China for the school holidays which started on 13 April 2024 and they returned together on 27 April 2024.
The tenancy agreement identifies both Mr Shan and Ms Song as landlords. While I accept the tenant’s evidence that he always dealt with Mr Shan and was never told that he could contact Ms Song about any issues with the tenancy if Mr Shan wasn’t available, I do not find a breach of s.16A RTA proved.
As the tenant has had claims upheld I reimburse the filing fee.
The landlords ask for a suppression Order to be made but the grounds in s.95A are not established.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4906516 — net $831.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: refund fixed water charges	$711.22	refund fixed water charges
Compensation: tap repair	$100.00	tap repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$831.66
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$831.66

Order

No suppression Order is made.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (6191707-003) to Guirong Zhu immediately.
Jun Shan and Ling Song must pay Guirong Zhu $831.66 immediately, calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mandarin interpretation was provided. Bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.
The landlords say that they expected to be able to have their claims against the bond heard alongside the tenants claims and have only just became aware that they first needed to file a counterclaim. Their evidence is that a counter claim has been filed (5191941), but that claim is not yet visible to me.
I discussed with the parties hearing the landlords’ counterclaims today anyway so all matters in dispute could be determined. The landlords say that they are not in a position to proceed with their claims, having uploaded their evidence and having been told it was unlikely that their claim would be heard today.
I am grateful to the landlords for having acknowledged that it would be unfair to the tenant for his bond to remain held pending determination of the landlord’s claims, when the tenancy ended on 18 April 2024 and the tenants claim was filed on 5 June 2024.
The landlords say their counterclaim exceeds the amount awarded to the tenant in this Order, but they nevertheless consent to the bond being released to the tenant. Water Rates
It is not disputed that throughout the tenancy, the tenant paid the fixed water charges, as well as those based on the tenant’s consumption.
Section 39 RTA only allows a landlord to recover consumption based water charges.
The landlords do not dispute the tenant’s calculation of the fixed charges paid during the tenancy, which should be refunded. Repairs - tap
The tenant claims that the landlords breached their obligation under section 45(1)(b) RTA to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, due to a tap that the tenant was not able to turn of without difficulty, which he says hurt his hand.
The tenant refers to an exchange with Mr Shan on 10 and 11 March 2024 where the tenant notes, “The kitchen water cannot be turned off. I have to use very strong force, then the water stops running. I worried the water tap could be broken”. Mr Shan replied “OK..the time is tight I will fix it when I come back to New Zealand” The tenant’s response is not translated but is to the effect that was Ok with him and not a big problem. Mr Shan confirmed he would be back in New Zealand at the end of April/ early May 2024.
On 31 March 2024 the tenants e-mailed Mr Shan, “The problem of the water taps in the kitchen is getting worse now. Now I need to try many times and very strong force to turn around the water taps so the water could stop running. The landlord replied, “ I will ask someone to check it again after the long weekend.”
Mr Shan says that he had been over at the premises to fix the tap around 4 March 2024. He had a family member go to the property after the tenant’s e- mail on 31 March but they only checked the water meter, not the tap. The landlord also says that when the final inspection was done after the tenancy ended there was no problem with the tap and no issue with it has been raised by the new tenant.
In the Tribunal, claims must be proved on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of definitive evidence, the Tribunal must rely on the best evidence available.
The tenant’s evidence is contemporaneous and consistent. It shows an issue having been raised about the functioning of the tap on 10 March 2024 and again on 31 March 2024. I find it more likely than not that some repair of the tap was necessary for it to be in reasonable working condition.
By failing to attend to that repair, the landlords breached their obligations under s.45(1)(b).
It was a relatively minor issue and the tenancy ended shortly afterward so only modest compensation is due. It does not warrant an award of exemplary damages being made. Appointing an Agent
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims the landlords were overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
The landlords’ position is that while they accept that Mr Shan was out of New Zealand from mid-March 2024 to 27 April 2024, more than 21 days, Ms Song only joined him in China for the school holidays which started on 13 April 2024 and they returned together on 27 April 2024.
The tenancy agreement identifies both Mr Shan and Ms Song as landlords. While I accept the tenant’s evidence that he always dealt with Mr Shan and was never told that he could contact Ms Song about any issues with the tenancy if Mr Shan wasn’t available, I do not find a breach of s.16A RTA proved.
As the tenant has had claims upheld I reimburse the filing fee.
The landlords ask for a suppression Order to be made but the grounds in s.95A are not established.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4906516 — Property damage at 148 Lake Road, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4906516 — Property damage at 148 Lake Road, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions