What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5001668?

The tribunal order states: Gramax Property Management Limited - As Agent For 308 St Heliers Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5001668?

Compensation: Chimney Sweep Costs: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Dishwasher: $1,198.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Fencing loss of amenit…: $1,257.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Gardening loss of amen…: $1,144.28 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $683.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5001668?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5001668?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11151140-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5001668?

The tribunal order states: Gramax Property Management Limited - As Agent For 308 St Heliers Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5001668?

Compensation: Chimney Sweep Costs: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Dishwasher: $1,198.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Fencing loss of amenit…: $1,257.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Gardening loss of amen…: $1,144.28 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $683.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5001668?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5001668?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11151140-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

308 St Heliers Bay Road, St Heliers, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5001668 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5001668 — net $3,066.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$683.06		Water rates
Compensation: Fencing loss of amenity		$1,257.14	Fencing loss of amenity
Compensation: Gardening loss of amenity		$1,144.28	Gardening loss of amenity
Compensation: Chimney sweep costs		$150.00	Chimney sweep costs
Compensation: Dishwasher		$1,198.00	Dishwasher
Total award	$683.06	$3,749.42
Net award		$3,066.36
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,066.36

Order

Gramax Property Management Limited - As Agent For 308 St Heliers Limited Partnership must pay Rhodes John Barton $3,066.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote hearing on 26 November 2024.
The matter had been part heard by another adjudicator with orders dated 19 September 2024 made in favour of the landlord. That hearing was adjourned for consideration of a claim by the landlord for water rates and a cross claim by the tenant for failure to maintain, breaches of the Healthy Homes standards and compensation.
The background to the tenancy is set out in the previous Tribunal order. I do not propose repeating it, but it forms part of this decision.
The landlord seeks compensation for $1,366.13 for water rates to the end of the tenancy.
The tenant says that he first moved into the premises in April 2023. He did not receive his first water rates invoice from the landlord until November 2023. He has received a further two invoices in the period to the end of the tenancy. This means that during the course of this almost 17 month tenancy the tenant has received 3 invoices for water rates.
Section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that a tenant will be responsible for outgoings including water rates.
The District Court referred to Braganza v Hill in its decision in Euroland v Hill [2014] RTHW 226; “Charges for water are recoverable only on the basis that bills have been provided to the tenant as and when they fall due so that the tenant may make proper provision for their payment at a reasonable time and that an attempt to recover globally later is an abuse.”
The tenant has not paid water rates during the tenancy.
Section 85 RTA sets out the manner in which the Tribunal is to exercise its jurisdiction. It requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case. The tenant would have been aware that he is responsible for water rates. No argument was raised to suggest that the invoices rendered were incorrect. However, the landlord has caused no small inconvenience by not providing invoices to the tenant as they fell due. Taking the merits and justice of the case into account, the tenant is ordered to pay one half of the water rates account ($683.06). Tenant claims
The tenant is a dog owner. He says that he was only prepared to enter into the tenancy on the condition that the landlord would provide suitable fencing for the tenant’s dog.
The tenant has provided a copy of an email, dated 9 March 2023 to the landlord. The email confirms that the tenant required temporary dog fencing and ongoing garden maintenance by the landlord as a condition of entering into the tenancy.
By email dated 14 March 2023 the landlord confirmed that temporary dog fencing and ongoing garden maintenance would be provided.
Fencing was installed by the landlord.
The tenant’s evidence was that the fencing was inadequate and that it did not properly contain the dogs in the rear area of the premises. The dogs were able and did escape.
The tenant requested more fencing from the landlord in a txt dated 30 June 2024. The landlord did not agree to provide more fencing. By txt message dated 1 July 2024, the landlord said that further fencing would costs another $50.00 per month approximately and the landlord would not agree to this. The landlord asked, “Is there any other way that it can stops your dog jumping out from the back?”(sic).
It was a term of the agreement that the landlord would provide fencing for two labrador dogs. In my view, it was an implied term of the agreement that the fence installed would be suitable to contain the dogs. Clearly it did not. The issue was raised by the tenant on 30 June 2004. The landlord cannot be responsible for any inconvenience caused prior to the issue being brought to the landlord’s attention. The breach of the agreement by the landlord has caused a loss of amenity to the tenant for the period between 30 June 2024 when the issue was raised, and 25 September 2024 when the tenancy ended (a period of 12 weeks and 4 days).The tenant should be compensated for that loss of amenity. As best as I am able to calculate the loss of amenity, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation on $100.00 per week, being a total of $1,257.14.
Despite the agreement that the landlord would carry out garden maintenance, no maintenance was done by the landlord. The failure to carry out the maintenance meant that the gardens become overgrown. This has caused a loss of amenity to the tenant. I calculate the loss of amenity as best as I am able to the tenant at $15.00 per week for the term of the tenancy (a period of 76 weeks and 2 days at $1,144.28) The landlord is ordered to pay compensation of that amount to the tenant.
The tenant says that he had to pay $150.00 to have the chimney swept. If a fireplace is used, it I the tenant’s responsibility to keep the fireplace reasonably tidy, but that does not extend to having the chimney swept which is a landlord responsibility. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation of $150.00 to the tenant.
The premises included a dishwasher. The obligation on the landlord under s. 45 RTA is to ensure that all chattels are in good repair at the commencement of the tenancy and to repair and chattels that may need repair during the term of the tenancy.
The dishwasher did not work. The landlord arranged for a replacement. The replacement was a “mini dishwasher” and did not fit into the space left by the previous unit. The landlord suggested that it be placed on the bench and used. That was obviously not appropriate.
The tenant purchased a dishwasher at a cost of $1,198.00. The dishwasher has been left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. I declare that the dishwasher is now owned by the landlord and the landlord is to compensate the tenant for the purchase price of $1,198.00.
The tenant raised other issues at the hearing which had not formed part of his initial application to the Tribunal nor had then been raised prior to the hearing. This included water blasting the deck area, the heat pump not working and signs remaining on the front fence. I have not included them in my decision making for that reason.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The matters have already formed a part of a Tribunal order dated 19 September 2024 for which suppression was not granted. It would not now be appropriate to order suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5001668 — net $3,066.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$683.06		Water rates
Compensation: Fencing loss of amenity		$1,257.14	Fencing loss of amenity
Compensation: Gardening loss of amenity		$1,144.28	Gardening loss of amenity
Compensation: Chimney sweep costs		$150.00	Chimney sweep costs
Compensation: Dishwasher		$1,198.00	Dishwasher
Total award	$683.06	$3,749.42
Net award		$3,066.36
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,066.36

Order

Gramax Property Management Limited - As Agent For 308 St Heliers Limited Partnership must pay Rhodes John Barton $3,066.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote hearing on 26 November 2024.
The matter had been part heard by another adjudicator with orders dated 19 September 2024 made in favour of the landlord. That hearing was adjourned for consideration of a claim by the landlord for water rates and a cross claim by the tenant for failure to maintain, breaches of the Healthy Homes standards and compensation.
The background to the tenancy is set out in the previous Tribunal order. I do not propose repeating it, but it forms part of this decision.
The landlord seeks compensation for $1,366.13 for water rates to the end of the tenancy.
The tenant says that he first moved into the premises in April 2023. He did not receive his first water rates invoice from the landlord until November 2023. He has received a further two invoices in the period to the end of the tenancy. This means that during the course of this almost 17 month tenancy the tenant has received 3 invoices for water rates.
Section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that a tenant will be responsible for outgoings including water rates.
The District Court referred to Braganza v Hill in its decision in Euroland v Hill [2014] RTHW 226; “Charges for water are recoverable only on the basis that bills have been provided to the tenant as and when they fall due so that the tenant may make proper provision for their payment at a reasonable time and that an attempt to recover globally later is an abuse.”
The tenant has not paid water rates during the tenancy.
Section 85 RTA sets out the manner in which the Tribunal is to exercise its jurisdiction. It requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case. The tenant would have been aware that he is responsible for water rates. No argument was raised to suggest that the invoices rendered were incorrect. However, the landlord has caused no small inconvenience by not providing invoices to the tenant as they fell due. Taking the merits and justice of the case into account, the tenant is ordered to pay one half of the water rates account ($683.06). Tenant claims
The tenant is a dog owner. He says that he was only prepared to enter into the tenancy on the condition that the landlord would provide suitable fencing for the tenant’s dog.
The tenant has provided a copy of an email, dated 9 March 2023 to the landlord. The email confirms that the tenant required temporary dog fencing and ongoing garden maintenance by the landlord as a condition of entering into the tenancy.
By email dated 14 March 2023 the landlord confirmed that temporary dog fencing and ongoing garden maintenance would be provided.
Fencing was installed by the landlord.
The tenant’s evidence was that the fencing was inadequate and that it did not properly contain the dogs in the rear area of the premises. The dogs were able and did escape.
The tenant requested more fencing from the landlord in a txt dated 30 June 2024. The landlord did not agree to provide more fencing. By txt message dated 1 July 2024, the landlord said that further fencing would costs another $50.00 per month approximately and the landlord would not agree to this. The landlord asked, “Is there any other way that it can stops your dog jumping out from the back?”(sic).
It was a term of the agreement that the landlord would provide fencing for two labrador dogs. In my view, it was an implied term of the agreement that the fence installed would be suitable to contain the dogs. Clearly it did not. The issue was raised by the tenant on 30 June 2004. The landlord cannot be responsible for any inconvenience caused prior to the issue being brought to the landlord’s attention. The breach of the agreement by the landlord has caused a loss of amenity to the tenant for the period between 30 June 2024 when the issue was raised, and 25 September 2024 when the tenancy ended (a period of 12 weeks and 4 days).The tenant should be compensated for that loss of amenity. As best as I am able to calculate the loss of amenity, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation on $100.00 per week, being a total of $1,257.14.
Despite the agreement that the landlord would carry out garden maintenance, no maintenance was done by the landlord. The failure to carry out the maintenance meant that the gardens become overgrown. This has caused a loss of amenity to the tenant. I calculate the loss of amenity as best as I am able to the tenant at $15.00 per week for the term of the tenancy (a period of 76 weeks and 2 days at $1,144.28) The landlord is ordered to pay compensation of that amount to the tenant.
The tenant says that he had to pay $150.00 to have the chimney swept. If a fireplace is used, it I the tenant’s responsibility to keep the fireplace reasonably tidy, but that does not extend to having the chimney swept which is a landlord responsibility. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation of $150.00 to the tenant.
The premises included a dishwasher. The obligation on the landlord under s. 45 RTA is to ensure that all chattels are in good repair at the commencement of the tenancy and to repair and chattels that may need repair during the term of the tenancy.
The dishwasher did not work. The landlord arranged for a replacement. The replacement was a “mini dishwasher” and did not fit into the space left by the previous unit. The landlord suggested that it be placed on the bench and used. That was obviously not appropriate.
The tenant purchased a dishwasher at a cost of $1,198.00. The dishwasher has been left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. I declare that the dishwasher is now owned by the landlord and the landlord is to compensate the tenant for the purchase price of $1,198.00.
The tenant raised other issues at the hearing which had not formed part of his initial application to the Tribunal nor had then been raised prior to the hearing. This included water blasting the deck area, the heat pump not working and signs remaining on the front fence. I have not included them in my decision making for that reason.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The matters have already formed a part of a Tribunal order dated 19 September 2024 for which suppression was not granted. It would not now be appropriate to order suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5001668 — Tenancy dispute at 308 St Heliers Bay Road, St Heliers, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5001668 — Tenancy dispute at 308 St Heliers Bay Road, St Heliers, Auckland 1071

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