What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4478721 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4478721?

Electricity Charges: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $632.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4478721?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4478721?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8776604-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4478721 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4478721?

Electricity Charges: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $632.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4478721?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4478721?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8776604-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4478721 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4478721 — net $952.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$632.00	Rent arrears
Electricity charges	$300.00	nt, and the need for me to estimate the likely usage, I order the tenant to pay $300.00 for the extra power usage.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$952.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$952.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Maria Florencia Mastropieri must pay [The landlord/s] $952.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on Thursday 23 March 2023.
The premises are at [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”).
The date for the commencement of the tenancy was initially in issue, but the parties have accepted that the tenancy commenced on 3 August 2021. I find as a matter of fact that the tenancy ended on 27 June 2022.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant has applied for; • Release of the bond (that claim was withdrawn by the tenant as the bond has now been released to the tenant under Tribunal order TT 4343595). • Healthy Homes Standards breaches. • Failure to maintain the premises. • Exemplary damages for failing to have a tenancy agreement. • Reimbursement of the filing fee.
I explained to the tenant at the commencement of the hearing that her claims had all been dealt with in previous decision of the Tribunal under TT 4343595 and could not be considered again. The tenant claims are accordingly dismissed. Rent Arrears.
The landlord seeks $1,617.86 for rent arrears.
The landlord provided a copy of a tenancy agreement in her evidence. The Tenancy agreement has been signed by the landlord, but not the tenant. The landlord says that she left a copy of the agreement in the tenant’s room. No copy signed by the tenant was provided in evidence.
The tenant simply says that she never received a copy of the Tenancy agreement.
The tenancy agreement that was provided states that there should only be one tenant (this was room by room tenancy).
The landlord says that as a result of the tenant evidence at the previous hearing, she discovered that the tenant had her boyfriend live with her at the premises for an extended period during the tenancy.
The landlord seeks to increase the rental for the premises for the period where there were effectively 2 tenants living in the room. The landlord seeks to increase the weekly rental from $150.00 to $225.00 for those periods.
The landlord says that she was unaware of the extra person living at the premises. She said she was aware that the tenant did have a boyfriend who may have stayed occasionally, but not that he was residing at the premises for an extended period.
Three issues remain for consideration. • Can the landlord increase the rent? • If so, what increase might be reasonable. • If so, what period did the boyfriend live in the premises.
The conditions required for a rental increase are set out at s.24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Given that the landlord says that they were not aware of the “permanent residency” of the extra tenant, the landlord did not comply with the requirements of s.24 RTA.
Section 85 RTA allows the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in such a manner that it is most likely to achieve a fair and expeditious resolution to the disputes between landlords and tenants.
During the hearing, the tenant accepted that it would be reasonable for the landlord to charge more for the presence of an extra tenant but disputed the period of time during which her boyfriend resided at the premises and the amount by which the landlord wished to increase the rent.
The landlord has imposed an increase of $75.00 per week, whilst the tenant said that she considered given the size of the room that $50.00 per week would be reasonable.
In those circumstances, I accept the basic proposition by the landlord that she was entitled to charge an increased rent for the period where the boyfriend was “in residence” at the premises.
The landlord in her rent summary claims that the boyfriend was present for 8 weeks during the period 28 December 2021 to 21 February 2022 and a further 7 weeks and 6 days between 3 May 2022 and 27 June 2022.
The tenant has paid for the standard rent of $150.00 throughout. The landlord seeks the further $1,617.86 for the “extra tenant”.
In support of her claim, the landlord provided written statements from two of the other room tenants at [Tenancy address suppressed]. Both statements record that the tenant’s boyfriend lived at the premises from the beginning of January 2022 until 27 June 2022.
The tenant in her evidence says that her boyfriend lived at the premises over two periods. From 17 January 2022 until 19 February 2022, when the boyfriend was required to move out due to an assault. The second period was from 24 April 2022 until 2 June 2022.
The first period amounts to 4 weeks and 6 days.
For the purposes of this decision, I record that the boyfriend stayed at the premises whilst the tenant was away. The landlord has not charged for a second tenant during that period and has only charged $150.00 per week as the tenant had asked the landlord to allow her to retain the tenancy during that period.
The tenant’s evidence would therefore be consistent with being charged for the extra tenant between 8 May 2022 (when she returned) and 2 June 2022. This second period amounts to 3 weeks and 4 days.
The combined period accepted by the tenant where a second tenant should be charged is therefore 8 weeks and 3 days.
Having considered the evidence and in particular; • the comment by the landlord that she was not entirely sure how long the extra tenant was in residence. • The evidence of the other tenants was in the form of a statement and neither person was available for cross examination, which means that their evidence carries less weight. • The onus of proving the claim is on the landlord. I am not persuaded to the required standard that the period of double occupancy proposed by the landlord is correct.
I prefer the tenant evidence that the period of double tenancy was 8 weeks and 3 days.
The landlord has sought to charge a further $75.00 per week. The normal rent would be $150.00 per week. The proposed rent increase is 50%. Greater costs are incurred with a second tenant. The fixtures and chattels at the premises depreciate at a faster rate. In those circumstances, I consider that the proposed rent increase by the landlord is reasonable. The tenant is to pay an extra $75.00 per week for the 8 weeks and 3 days referred to above being $632.14.
The tenant invited me to reduce this amount on the basis that she had never been told by the landlord of the concerns about the tenant’s behaviour raised by the other tenants. I do not consider that this submission is relevant to the claim, and I do not place any weight on it. Electricity Charges
The tenant is responsible for electricity outgoings (see s.39(4)(a) RTA).The landlord claims $422.25 for unpaid electricity charges.
The tenancy was a room by room tenancy consisting of four rooms. There was only one electricity meter recording the total use. The landlord has adopted a simple formula of dividing the electricity costs equally between the four tenants. There is no means of calculating the power that was solely attributable to the tenant. The landlord has increased the share payable by the tenant for the period where she says that there was a double tenancy. I note my previous finding that this is a period of 8 weeks and one day.
In Geraghty v Raui (2019) NZDC 3818, the District Court held that in considering whether to require the tenant to pay for outgoings when there is no means of accurately calculating the tenant’s actual consumption, the Tribunal must have regard to s.85 RTA.
Section 85(2) RTA provides: “The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give strict effect to legal rights or obligations or legal forms or technicalities.”
The tenant must accept the common sense proposition that she has used electricity while living at the premises and that she should pay for reasonable use. It is also a common sense proposition that two people will generally use more electricity that one.
The tenant says that her electricity usage was modest. There were 3 other residents at the premises.
It is impossible for the reasons set out above for me to apply a precise amount to the tenant’s use.
For the first period of the tenancy (from August 2021 through to 7 January 2022), the tenant has been charged for 25% of the total electricity use and has paid that charge.
For the second block of time from 8 January 2022, the landlord has charged varying percentages based on the time when the second tenant was present. In light of the period during which I accept that the second tenant was present, and the need for me to estimate the likely usage, I order the tenant to pay $300.00 for the extra power usage.
As [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful and suppression is ordered for the landlord details. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful and her application for name suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4478721 — net $952.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$632.00	Rent arrears
Electricity charges	$300.00	nt, and the need for me to estimate the likely usage, I order the tenant to pay $300.00 for the extra power usage.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$952.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$952.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Maria Florencia Mastropieri must pay [The landlord/s] $952.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on Thursday 23 March 2023.
The premises are at [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”).
The date for the commencement of the tenancy was initially in issue, but the parties have accepted that the tenancy commenced on 3 August 2021. I find as a matter of fact that the tenancy ended on 27 June 2022.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant has applied for; • Release of the bond (that claim was withdrawn by the tenant as the bond has now been released to the tenant under Tribunal order TT 4343595). • Healthy Homes Standards breaches. • Failure to maintain the premises. • Exemplary damages for failing to have a tenancy agreement. • Reimbursement of the filing fee.
I explained to the tenant at the commencement of the hearing that her claims had all been dealt with in previous decision of the Tribunal under TT 4343595 and could not be considered again. The tenant claims are accordingly dismissed. Rent Arrears.
The landlord seeks $1,617.86 for rent arrears.
The landlord provided a copy of a tenancy agreement in her evidence. The Tenancy agreement has been signed by the landlord, but not the tenant. The landlord says that she left a copy of the agreement in the tenant’s room. No copy signed by the tenant was provided in evidence.
The tenant simply says that she never received a copy of the Tenancy agreement.
The tenancy agreement that was provided states that there should only be one tenant (this was room by room tenancy).
The landlord says that as a result of the tenant evidence at the previous hearing, she discovered that the tenant had her boyfriend live with her at the premises for an extended period during the tenancy.
The landlord seeks to increase the rental for the premises for the period where there were effectively 2 tenants living in the room. The landlord seeks to increase the weekly rental from $150.00 to $225.00 for those periods.
The landlord says that she was unaware of the extra person living at the premises. She said she was aware that the tenant did have a boyfriend who may have stayed occasionally, but not that he was residing at the premises for an extended period.
Three issues remain for consideration. • Can the landlord increase the rent? • If so, what increase might be reasonable. • If so, what period did the boyfriend live in the premises.
The conditions required for a rental increase are set out at s.24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Given that the landlord says that they were not aware of the “permanent residency” of the extra tenant, the landlord did not comply with the requirements of s.24 RTA.
Section 85 RTA allows the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in such a manner that it is most likely to achieve a fair and expeditious resolution to the disputes between landlords and tenants.
During the hearing, the tenant accepted that it would be reasonable for the landlord to charge more for the presence of an extra tenant but disputed the period of time during which her boyfriend resided at the premises and the amount by which the landlord wished to increase the rent.
The landlord has imposed an increase of $75.00 per week, whilst the tenant said that she considered given the size of the room that $50.00 per week would be reasonable.
In those circumstances, I accept the basic proposition by the landlord that she was entitled to charge an increased rent for the period where the boyfriend was “in residence” at the premises.
The landlord in her rent summary claims that the boyfriend was present for 8 weeks during the period 28 December 2021 to 21 February 2022 and a further 7 weeks and 6 days between 3 May 2022 and 27 June 2022.
The tenant has paid for the standard rent of $150.00 throughout. The landlord seeks the further $1,617.86 for the “extra tenant”.
In support of her claim, the landlord provided written statements from two of the other room tenants at [Tenancy address suppressed]. Both statements record that the tenant’s boyfriend lived at the premises from the beginning of January 2022 until 27 June 2022.
The tenant in her evidence says that her boyfriend lived at the premises over two periods. From 17 January 2022 until 19 February 2022, when the boyfriend was required to move out due to an assault. The second period was from 24 April 2022 until 2 June 2022.
The first period amounts to 4 weeks and 6 days.
For the purposes of this decision, I record that the boyfriend stayed at the premises whilst the tenant was away. The landlord has not charged for a second tenant during that period and has only charged $150.00 per week as the tenant had asked the landlord to allow her to retain the tenancy during that period.
The tenant’s evidence would therefore be consistent with being charged for the extra tenant between 8 May 2022 (when she returned) and 2 June 2022. This second period amounts to 3 weeks and 4 days.
The combined period accepted by the tenant where a second tenant should be charged is therefore 8 weeks and 3 days.
Having considered the evidence and in particular; • the comment by the landlord that she was not entirely sure how long the extra tenant was in residence. • The evidence of the other tenants was in the form of a statement and neither person was available for cross examination, which means that their evidence carries less weight. • The onus of proving the claim is on the landlord. I am not persuaded to the required standard that the period of double occupancy proposed by the landlord is correct.
I prefer the tenant evidence that the period of double tenancy was 8 weeks and 3 days.
The landlord has sought to charge a further $75.00 per week. The normal rent would be $150.00 per week. The proposed rent increase is 50%. Greater costs are incurred with a second tenant. The fixtures and chattels at the premises depreciate at a faster rate. In those circumstances, I consider that the proposed rent increase by the landlord is reasonable. The tenant is to pay an extra $75.00 per week for the 8 weeks and 3 days referred to above being $632.14.
The tenant invited me to reduce this amount on the basis that she had never been told by the landlord of the concerns about the tenant’s behaviour raised by the other tenants. I do not consider that this submission is relevant to the claim, and I do not place any weight on it. Electricity Charges
The tenant is responsible for electricity outgoings (see s.39(4)(a) RTA).The landlord claims $422.25 for unpaid electricity charges.
The tenancy was a room by room tenancy consisting of four rooms. There was only one electricity meter recording the total use. The landlord has adopted a simple formula of dividing the electricity costs equally between the four tenants. There is no means of calculating the power that was solely attributable to the tenant. The landlord has increased the share payable by the tenant for the period where she says that there was a double tenancy. I note my previous finding that this is a period of 8 weeks and one day.
In Geraghty v Raui (2019) NZDC 3818, the District Court held that in considering whether to require the tenant to pay for outgoings when there is no means of accurately calculating the tenant’s actual consumption, the Tribunal must have regard to s.85 RTA.
Section 85(2) RTA provides: “The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give strict effect to legal rights or obligations or legal forms or technicalities.”
The tenant must accept the common sense proposition that she has used electricity while living at the premises and that she should pay for reasonable use. It is also a common sense proposition that two people will generally use more electricity that one.
The tenant says that her electricity usage was modest. There were 3 other residents at the premises.
It is impossible for the reasons set out above for me to apply a precise amount to the tenant’s use.
For the first period of the tenancy (from August 2021 through to 7 January 2022), the tenant has been charged for 25% of the total electricity use and has paid that charge.
For the second block of time from 8 January 2022, the landlord has charged varying percentages based on the time when the second tenant was present. In light of the period during which I accept that the second tenant was present, and the need for me to estimate the likely usage, I order the tenant to pay $300.00 for the extra power usage.
As [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful and suppression is ordered for the landlord details. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful and her application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4478721 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4478721 — Rent arrears

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