What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5111149?

The tribunal order states: Jeffrey Perea and Jennifer Collee must pay Khmg Investment Management

How much money was awarded in case 5111149?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,557.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $180.46 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5111149?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5111149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11768244-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5111149?

The tribunal order states: Jeffrey Perea and Jennifer Collee must pay Khmg Investment Management

How much money was awarded in case 5111149?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,557.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $180.46 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5111149?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5111149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11768244-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Meadowvale Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5111149 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5111149 — net $364.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 09/12/2024	$4,557.14	Rent arrears to 09/12/2024
Water rates	$180.46	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$364.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$364.60

Jeffrey Perea and Jennifer Collee must pay Khmg Investment Management Limited As Agent For Rui Ming & Xingjuan Xu & Yan $364.60 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 (5854841-008) to Khmg Investment Management Limited As Agent For Rui Ming & Xingjuan Xu & Yan immediately.

The landlord’s claim for the pool inspection fee is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The Tribunal was unable to contact the tenants on the contact number provided. I was satisfied that adequate service of the hearing notice had been completed and deemed it reasonable to proceed with the hearing in the tenant’s absence.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears ($4,557.14), unpaid water rates ($180.46), recovery of pool inspection fees x 2 ($380.00), refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 9 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing.

Can the landlord claim pool inspection fees?

The landlord seeks to recover the cost of a pool fencing inspection fee on the basis that the tenants failed to provide access to the pool area. However, under section 48(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must provide the tenant with at least 24 hours’ written notice before entering the premises for compliance inspections.

In this case, no formal written notice was provided. Instead, arrangements were attempted via same-day telephone calls. This is not sufficient notice under section 48 RTA, which requires at least 24 hours’ written notice for access unless the tenant otherwise consents. In the absence of proper notice, the tenants were not legally obliged to arrange access for the pool inspection.

It is normal and reasonable for tenants to be unavailable during working hours. Tenants are under no obligation to adjust their work schedules or provide immediate access unless proper lawful notice has been given in accordance with the RTA.

It is also clear from the evidence that the padlock on the gate was placed there by the tenants for security reasons, not to deliberately obstruct access. Forgetting to remove the padlock on short notice, particularly when no formal written notice had been issued, constitutes an oversight rather than a deliberate or intentional breach. Tribunal decisions have consistently found that inadvertent oversights of this nature, especially where proper notice was not given, do not justify an award of costs against tenants.

The responsibility to ensure lawful access arrangements lies with the landlord. Where inspections proceed without the landlord first providing proper notice under the RTA, they assume the risk of access difficulties and any associated inspection costs.

In this case, although the landlord submits that access was obstructed due to the gate being locked, I find that there was no formal written notice and no deliberate or unreasonable denial of access by the tenants. Accordingly, the preconditions for recovering the pool inspection fees are not satisfied.

The landlord’s claim for reimbursement of the inspection fees is therefore dismissed. Filing fee

As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I consider it reasonable to order the tenants to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5111149 — net $364.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 09/12/2024	$4,557.14	Rent arrears to 09/12/2024
Water rates	$180.46	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$364.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$364.60

Order

Jeffrey Perea and Jennifer Collee must pay Khmg Investment Management Limited As Agent For Rui Ming & Xingjuan Xu & Yan $364.60 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 (5854841-008) to Khmg Investment Management Limited As Agent For Rui Ming & Xingjuan Xu & Yan immediately.
The landlord’s claim for the pool inspection fee is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The Tribunal was unable to contact the tenants on the contact number provided. I was satisfied that adequate service of the hearing notice had been completed and deemed it reasonable to proceed with the hearing in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears ($4,557.14), unpaid water rates ($180.46), recovery of pool inspection fees x 2 ($380.00), refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 9 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing.

Can the landlord claim pool inspection fees?

The landlord seeks to recover the cost of a pool fencing inspection fee on the basis that the tenants failed to provide access to the pool area. However, under section 48(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must provide the tenant with at least 24 hours’ written notice before entering the premises for compliance inspections.
In this case, no formal written notice was provided. Instead, arrangements were attempted via same-day telephone calls. This is not sufficient notice under section 48 RTA, which requires at least 24 hours’ written notice for access unless the tenant otherwise consents. In the absence of proper notice, the tenants were not legally obliged to arrange access for the pool inspection.
It is normal and reasonable for tenants to be unavailable during working hours. Tenants are under no obligation to adjust their work schedules or provide immediate access unless proper lawful notice has been given in accordance with the RTA.
It is also clear from the evidence that the padlock on the gate was placed there by the tenants for security reasons, not to deliberately obstruct access. Forgetting to remove the padlock on short notice, particularly when no formal written notice had been issued, constitutes an oversight rather than a deliberate or intentional breach. Tribunal decisions have consistently found that inadvertent oversights of this nature, especially where proper notice was not given, do not justify an award of costs against tenants.
The responsibility to ensure lawful access arrangements lies with the landlord. Where inspections proceed without the landlord first providing proper notice under the RTA, they assume the risk of access difficulties and any associated inspection costs.
In this case, although the landlord submits that access was obstructed due to the gate being locked, I find that there was no formal written notice and no deliberate or unreasonable denial of access by the tenants. Accordingly, the preconditions for recovering the pool inspection fees are not satisfied.
The landlord’s claim for reimbursement of the inspection fees is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I consider it reasonable to order the tenants to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5111149 — Rent arrears at 33 Meadowvale Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5111149 — Rent arrears at 33 Meadowvale Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Can the landlord claim pool inspection fees?

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 and water rates?

Can the landlord claim pool inspection fees?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions