What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5146772?

The tribunal order states: The respondent’s name is changed to reflect the legal entity involved. The

How much money was awarded in case 5146772?

Mbrose And Julie Vicki Ambrose As Tr…: $136.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146772?

The primary dispute was Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146772?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11679645-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5146772?

The tribunal order states: The respondent’s name is changed to reflect the legal entity involved. The

How much money was awarded in case 5146772?

Mbrose And Julie Vicki Ambrose As Tr…: $136.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146772?

The primary dispute was Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146772?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11679645-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

68A Mana Esplanade, Paremata, Porirua 5026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5146772 — Compensation

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146772. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
mbrose and Julie Vicki Ambrose as Trustees of Sounds Trust. 2. Mark Ambrose and Julie Vicki Ambrose as Trustees of Sound	$136.50		mbrose and Julie Vicki Ambrose as Trustees of Sounds Trust. 2. Mark Ambrose and Julie Vicki Ambrose as Trustees of Sound

Order

The respondent’s name is changed to reflect the legal entity involved. The landlord is Mark Ambrose and Julie Vicki Ambrose as Trustees of Sounds Trust.
Mark Ambrose and Julie Vicki Ambrose as Trustees of Sounds Trust must pay $136.50 to Liam Hawthorne and Sofiia Bondarchuk immediately.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The tenants made several claims in their application however the parties attended mediation and at the hearing today, the tenants informed the Tribunal that they only request a determination from the Tribunal on two issues. They are: a. Has the landlord correctly reimbursed the tenants for power and internet? b. Should compensation be ordered for the occasion when the landlord parked his vehicle in the carpark used by the tenants. The landlord’s power usage
The parties’ Tenancy Agreement (the Agreement) made clear that the tenanted area did not include the garage. The landlord used this area for building work and to store a boat. The garage had a power meter to give readings for the garage use. The tenancy agreement stated that the meter reading for the garage was 59858 on 17 November 2023. That was the day the tenancy commenced. At the end of the tenancy the landlord provided the tenants with the power reading for the garage area. 855 units had been used by 9 November 2024. The landlord requested the tenants to provide a power account so he could see the charge per unit and calculate the amount to pay the tenants. The tenants did not provide the account. The correspondence shows that they queried the landlords’ honesty and suggested that he could have manipulated the reading because he is an electrician. In the end the landlord used an average rate of three power suppliers and calculated amount owed.
The tenants have claimed that Mark Ambrose did not show them the meter at the beginning of the tenancy. However I am satisfied that if the meter reading was a concern to the tenants at the start of the tenancy they could have asked the landlord to show them the meter. They did not. No doubt the fact that Liam Hawthorne’s father was a close friend of Mark Ambrose meant the parties trusted each other. At the hearing the landlord provided evidence of the meter locations, the seal on the meter and the readings. I am satisfied that there is insufficient evidence to prove any dishonesty on the part of the landlord.
The tenants have claimed that the landlord’s calculation did not include compensation for the daily fixed charge for power. The tenants did not provide evidence to the Tribunal showing an electricity account with the daily fixed charge. The claim for compensation could be dismissed for insufficient evidence. However I am satisfied that a daily fixed charge for power would have been incurred by the tenants. It is charged on all accounts. I am also satisfied that the landlord received the benefit of power to the garage due to the tenants’ power account and it is reasonable for the landlord to contribute to the daily charge. There are a variety of daily charges made by electricity providers. In the absence of an amount provided by the tenants I have used a conservative figure of 60cents per day. Over the period of a year the daily charge is about $219.00. I have determined that the landlord should contribute equally to that charge. I have decided that is reasonable because it takes account of both the fixed daily charge charge and also that the tenants did not receive payment from the landlord until the end of the year. The landlord effectively had the use of the tenants’ money during that time. With future tenants that landlord should sort out this arrangement more completely and record it in the Tenancy Agreement.
The additional amount the landlord should pay the tenants regarding electricity is $109.50.
The tenants have claimed a contribution from the landlord for internet usage. There is an alarm in the garage. The alarm is wired such that Mark Ambrose can use his phone to turn the alarm off, if necessary, when residing in Auckland. The landlord said this happened once. The tenants believe more data was used however did not provide evidence about the alarm system that would assist the Tribunal to make that finding.
The claim for compensation from the landlord for internet usage is dismissed. There is insufficient evidence to prove the claim. The landlord using the tenants’ parking space on 29 September 2024
In September 2024 the tenants were to be away overseas for about two weeks. The landlord wanted access to the garage to remove hois boat while the tenants were away and arranged for parks to be available on the property next door so no vehicle would block the garage entrance. The Agreement stated that the tenancy included parking for one car on the property.
On 29 September Mark Ambrose parked in the area to the side of the garage where Sofiia wanted to leave her car while she was overseas. Generally the tenancy park was used by Liam for his work van. Sofiia generally had to park her vehicle on the road. Mark generally parked in the garage after he removed his boat.
From the discussion at the hearing, I am satisfied that Mark Ambrose did discuss the park next door with Liam Hawthorne and that Liam agreed to that park beithat ng used while they were away. It was reasonable therefore for Mark to believe he could park his car in front of the garage on 29 September, the day before the tenants went overseas. As it turned out, Liam did not use the park next door and Sofiia did not leave her car next door either.
I am satisfied that there are no grounds for compensation regarding the park. There was no inconvenience necessary regarding parking. It appears that the falling out between the parties has made this more of an issue than it needed to be.
If tenants had a concern about the landlord parking a car at the property during the year they were there they needed to inform Mark of this when it was happening and not wait a month before the tenancy ended.
The claim for compensation regarding parking is dismissed. Filing Fee
Because the tenants have been partly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $27.00 is ordered to be paid by the landlord. Suppression Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Neither party was substantially successful regarding issues raised in the application and therefore name suppression is not ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146772. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
mbrose and Julie Vicki Ambrose as Trustees of Sounds Trust. 2. Mark Ambrose and Julie Vicki Ambrose as Trustees of Sound	$136.50		mbrose and Julie Vicki Ambrose as Trustees of Sounds Trust. 2. Mark Ambrose and Julie Vicki Ambrose as Trustees of Sound

Order

The respondent’s name is changed to reflect the legal entity involved. The landlord is Mark Ambrose and Julie Vicki Ambrose as Trustees of Sounds Trust.
Mark Ambrose and Julie Vicki Ambrose as Trustees of Sounds Trust must pay $136.50 to Liam Hawthorne and Sofiia Bondarchuk immediately.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The tenants made several claims in their application however the parties attended mediation and at the hearing today, the tenants informed the Tribunal that they only request a determination from the Tribunal on two issues. They are: a. Has the landlord correctly reimbursed the tenants for power and internet? b. Should compensation be ordered for the occasion when the landlord parked his vehicle in the carpark used by the tenants. The landlord’s power usage
The parties’ Tenancy Agreement (the Agreement) made clear that the tenanted area did not include the garage. The landlord used this area for building work and to store a boat. The garage had a power meter to give readings for the garage use. The tenancy agreement stated that the meter reading for the garage was 59858 on 17 November 2023. That was the day the tenancy commenced. At the end of the tenancy the landlord provided the tenants with the power reading for the garage area. 855 units had been used by 9 November 2024. The landlord requested the tenants to provide a power account so he could see the charge per unit and calculate the amount to pay the tenants. The tenants did not provide the account. The correspondence shows that they queried the landlords’ honesty and suggested that he could have manipulated the reading because he is an electrician. In the end the landlord used an average rate of three power suppliers and calculated amount owed.
The tenants have claimed that Mark Ambrose did not show them the meter at the beginning of the tenancy. However I am satisfied that if the meter reading was a concern to the tenants at the start of the tenancy they could have asked the landlord to show them the meter. They did not. No doubt the fact that Liam Hawthorne’s father was a close friend of Mark Ambrose meant the parties trusted each other. At the hearing the landlord provided evidence of the meter locations, the seal on the meter and the readings. I am satisfied that there is insufficient evidence to prove any dishonesty on the part of the landlord.
The tenants have claimed that the landlord’s calculation did not include compensation for the daily fixed charge for power. The tenants did not provide evidence to the Tribunal showing an electricity account with the daily fixed charge. The claim for compensation could be dismissed for insufficient evidence. However I am satisfied that a daily fixed charge for power would have been incurred by the tenants. It is charged on all accounts. I am also satisfied that the landlord received the benefit of power to the garage due to the tenants’ power account and it is reasonable for the landlord to contribute to the daily charge. There are a variety of daily charges made by electricity providers. In the absence of an amount provided by the tenants I have used a conservative figure of 60cents per day. Over the period of a year the daily charge is about $219.00. I have determined that the landlord should contribute equally to that charge. I have decided that is reasonable because it takes account of both the fixed daily charge charge and also that the tenants did not receive payment from the landlord until the end of the year. The landlord effectively had the use of the tenants’ money during that time. With future tenants that landlord should sort out this arrangement more completely and record it in the Tenancy Agreement.
The additional amount the landlord should pay the tenants regarding electricity is $109.50.
The tenants have claimed a contribution from the landlord for internet usage. There is an alarm in the garage. The alarm is wired such that Mark Ambrose can use his phone to turn the alarm off, if necessary, when residing in Auckland. The landlord said this happened once. The tenants believe more data was used however did not provide evidence about the alarm system that would assist the Tribunal to make that finding.
The claim for compensation from the landlord for internet usage is dismissed. There is insufficient evidence to prove the claim. The landlord using the tenants’ parking space on 29 September 2024
In September 2024 the tenants were to be away overseas for about two weeks. The landlord wanted access to the garage to remove hois boat while the tenants were away and arranged for parks to be available on the property next door so no vehicle would block the garage entrance. The Agreement stated that the tenancy included parking for one car on the property.
On 29 September Mark Ambrose parked in the area to the side of the garage where Sofiia wanted to leave her car while she was overseas. Generally the tenancy park was used by Liam for his work van. Sofiia generally had to park her vehicle on the road. Mark generally parked in the garage after he removed his boat.
From the discussion at the hearing, I am satisfied that Mark Ambrose did discuss the park next door with Liam Hawthorne and that Liam agreed to that park beithat ng used while they were away. It was reasonable therefore for Mark to believe he could park his car in front of the garage on 29 September, the day before the tenants went overseas. As it turned out, Liam did not use the park next door and Sofiia did not leave her car next door either.
I am satisfied that there are no grounds for compensation regarding the park. There was no inconvenience necessary regarding parking. It appears that the falling out between the parties has made this more of an issue than it needed to be.
If tenants had a concern about the landlord parking a car at the property during the year they were there they needed to inform Mark of this when it was happening and not wait a month before the tenancy ended.
The claim for compensation regarding parking is dismissed. Filing Fee
Because the tenants have been partly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $27.00 is ordered to be paid by the landlord. Suppression Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Neither party was substantially successful regarding issues raised in the application and therefore name suppression is not ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146772 — Compensation at 68A Mana Esplanade, Paremata, Porirua 5026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146772 — Compensation at 68A Mana Esplanade, Paremata, Porirua 5026

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions