What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5118555?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5118555?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118555?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Leaks, Water Rates.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118555?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11426056-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5118555?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5118555?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118555?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Leaks, Water Rates.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118555?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11426056-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

91 Hurndall Street East, Maungaturoto, Maungaturoto 0520 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5118555 — 14-day notice

Order

The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay $504.70 from the bond to the landlord being $477.70 for water rates and $27.00 in reimbursement of the filing fee.
The balance of the bond of $575.30 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
The tenant is to pay $15.00 per week to the landlord beginning on 18 February 2024 on account of accrued water rates.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone. Water rates
The landlord has applied for outstanding water rates and provided a copy of the invoice. She confirmed that the tenant had been paying regular instalments against the water rates and these amounts have been deducted from the total amount sought.
The landlord issued a 14-day notice to the tenant on 21 December 2024 and advised that the amount claimed had not been paid.
The tenant advised that she suspected there was a leak at the property as she was shocked to receive such a large bill. She noted that the toilet cistern appeared to be leaking into the toilet bowl and notified the landlord.
The landlord arranged to have a plumber inspect the cistern. The landlord advised that the plumber discovered a crack in the ballcock and replaced it. The landlord advised that the plumber believes any leak from this failure was “insignificant”.
The tenant gave evidence that the plumber told her that the leaking explained the water bill.
The landlord engaged with the local council responsible for the water rates to see if a remission was available. She provided the council with water meter readings seven days apart as directed by the council. She advised that the council told her that the readings revealed a greater rate of water use during that one-week period than during the period covered by the invoice. The council declined to make any remission.
The tenant advised that she believed that there was an undiscovered water leak at the property which explained the level of water rates. She did not provide any evidence in support of that belief.
The landlord gave evidence that the water invoice was similar to that for the neighbouring property which is also owned by the landlord.
On the evidence before the Tribunal the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the water rates as claimed are payable by the tenant. The tenant has not persuaded the Tribunal that there is a leak at the property so that the landlord should meet a portion of the water invoice.
The tenancy is due to end on 16 March 2025 and there will be a further invoice to cover the final portion of the tenancy. The tenant agreed to make weekly payments of $15.00 towards this final liability. Termination
The landlord’s application is for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c) Residential Tenancy Act 1986 (“RTA”) on the basis that the tenant has threatened to assault the landlord.
The landlord provided in evidence a notice issued to the tenant recording the threat.
The tenant responsibly accepted that she had said those words or similar and apologised to the landlord. She explained that she was very upset to receive such a large bill for the water just before Christmas and felt that the landlord was contacting her excessively about it.
Section 55(1)(c) RTA provides that on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has threatened to assault any agent of the landlord.
The Tribunal may refuse to make the order sought by the landlord if it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which section 55 RTA applies. See section 55(2) RTA.
The High Court has determined that while the threat cannot be undone or remedied, the Tribunal retains the power to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach; and it is unlikely that the tenant will make further threats to assault the landlord’s agent.
In these circumstances, the landlord has not suffered any loss for which the tenant should pay compensation.
The Tribunal is satisfied that it is not necessary to terminate the tenancy because it is unlikely that the tenant will make further threats against the landlord. The tenancy is to end in just over four weeks. The tenant has expressed remorse at her words and understands the serious consequences they may have.
Because Lee Family Trustee Limited (Trustees: Jo Anne Lee And Ricardo Lee) has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay $504.70 from the bond to the landlord being $477.70 for water rates and $27.00 in reimbursement of the filing fee.
The balance of the bond of $575.30 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
The tenant is to pay $15.00 per week to the landlord beginning on 18 February 2024 on account of accrued water rates.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone. Water rates
The landlord has applied for outstanding water rates and provided a copy of the invoice. She confirmed that the tenant had been paying regular instalments against the water rates and these amounts have been deducted from the total amount sought.
The landlord issued a 14-day notice to the tenant on 21 December 2024 and advised that the amount claimed had not been paid.
The tenant advised that she suspected there was a leak at the property as she was shocked to receive such a large bill. She noted that the toilet cistern appeared to be leaking into the toilet bowl and notified the landlord.
The landlord arranged to have a plumber inspect the cistern. The landlord advised that the plumber discovered a crack in the ballcock and replaced it. The landlord advised that the plumber believes any leak from this failure was “insignificant”.
The tenant gave evidence that the plumber told her that the leaking explained the water bill.
The landlord engaged with the local council responsible for the water rates to see if a remission was available. She provided the council with water meter readings seven days apart as directed by the council. She advised that the council told her that the readings revealed a greater rate of water use during that one-week period than during the period covered by the invoice. The council declined to make any remission.
The tenant advised that she believed that there was an undiscovered water leak at the property which explained the level of water rates. She did not provide any evidence in support of that belief.
The landlord gave evidence that the water invoice was similar to that for the neighbouring property which is also owned by the landlord.
On the evidence before the Tribunal the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the water rates as claimed are payable by the tenant. The tenant has not persuaded the Tribunal that there is a leak at the property so that the landlord should meet a portion of the water invoice.
The tenancy is due to end on 16 March 2025 and there will be a further invoice to cover the final portion of the tenancy. The tenant agreed to make weekly payments of $15.00 towards this final liability. Termination
The landlord’s application is for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c) Residential Tenancy Act 1986 (“RTA”) on the basis that the tenant has threatened to assault the landlord.
The landlord provided in evidence a notice issued to the tenant recording the threat.
The tenant responsibly accepted that she had said those words or similar and apologised to the landlord. She explained that she was very upset to receive such a large bill for the water just before Christmas and felt that the landlord was contacting her excessively about it.
Section 55(1)(c) RTA provides that on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has threatened to assault any agent of the landlord.
The Tribunal may refuse to make the order sought by the landlord if it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which section 55 RTA applies. See section 55(2) RTA.
The High Court has determined that while the threat cannot be undone or remedied, the Tribunal retains the power to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach; and it is unlikely that the tenant will make further threats to assault the landlord’s agent.
In these circumstances, the landlord has not suffered any loss for which the tenant should pay compensation.
The Tribunal is satisfied that it is not necessary to terminate the tenancy because it is unlikely that the tenant will make further threats against the landlord. The tenancy is to end in just over four weeks. The tenant has expressed remorse at her words and understands the serious consequences they may have.
Because Lee Family Trustee Limited (Trustees: Jo Anne Lee And Ricardo Lee) has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118555 — 14-day notice at 91 Hurndall Street East, Maungaturoto, Maungaturoto 0520

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118555 — 14-day notice at 91 Hurndall Street East, Maungaturoto, Maungaturoto 0520

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