What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4541271 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 4541271?

And The Tribunal Orders Suppression…: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4541271?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4541271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9281716-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4541271 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 4541271?

And The Tribunal Orders Suppression…: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4541271?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4541271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9281716-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4541271 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4541271. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details. 2. The rent increase of 11 July 2022	$500.00		and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details. 2. The rent increase of 11 July 2022

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
The rent increase of 11 July 2022 to $500.00 per week included water. The tenants are not liable for water from 11 July 2022.

Reasons

The tenants applied to the Tribunal for a declaration as to whether the rent increase beginning 11 July 2022 $500.00 included water rates of $25.00 per week or not .
The tenancy has been in place since 29 January 2018. The first term of the tenancy was fixed but the tenancy has now reverted to a periodic tenancy.
It is not disputed that the rent has been modest for the property. This is not a dispute about whether the rent exceeds market rent pursuant to s25, rather it is a question on interpretation of the tenancy agreement and other correspondence between the parties.
In the tenancy agreement the relevant clauses are: a. Paragraph 2 which states ‘rent together with water shall be paid in advance amounting to $465.00 per week (including $25.00 per week going to water payable to [The landlord/s]” b. Paragraph 6a “ the tenant shall pay the rent and water of $25.00 per week amounting to $465.00 every week and every rent day thereafter” c. Paragraph 6b “the tenant is responsible for all bill payments attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the property such as electricity, gas, telephone and internet charges.”
On the 2 May 2022 the landlords sent the tenant a letter increasing the rent the relevant section of the letter said. The new rent will be $500 per week and will take effect from 11 July 2022, which is not less than 180 days since the last increase, commencement of your tenant or less than 60 days from the date of this notice in accordance with section 24 RTA.
Up until the 11 July 2022 the landlord had received the tenants rent and put $440.00 into the rent ledger and $25.00 into the water ledger. Occasionally from time to time the amount for the water would be in credit and the landlord would refund the tenant the excess. The last time that this occurred was on the 12 May 2022.
After the 11 July 2022 the landlord attributed the whole $500.00 paid by the tenants to rent, with no money going to water. The landlord then sought payment of the water rates from the tenant on the 9 November 2022. The tenants had until then thought that the landlord was paying $475.00 towards the rent and putting $25.00 into the water account. The tenants say that they understood that the rent increase of 2 May to $500.00 included $25.00 towards water and that the landlord was increasing the rent from $440 to $475.00 and leaving the water at $25.00 per week, thereby increasing the total from $465.00 to $500.00.
The tenants seek confirmation from the Tribunal that the rental is $475.00 per week with an additional $25.00 for water making a total of $500.00.
The landlord says that the rent increase is clear the rent is being increased to $500 not the rent and water. The landlord says the tenant’s obligation to pay water is in addition to the obligation to pay rent.
Both parties told me at the hearing on the 3 July that they accept that they did not discuss the rent increase between 11 July 2022 and 9 November 2022 and in particular whether the $500.00 was just for rent or for rent and water.
The Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) provides that the tenant pays for the water that they use (see s39). There is no obligation to pay this money in advance. The landlord is sent the invoice from the water supplier and the fixed costs are deducted from the water invoice and the landlord sends the invoice to the tenant for payment. It is not uncommon for tenants to pay an amount towards water weekly for budgeting purposes, but the landlord cannot require them to do that because the tenant is only liable to pay for the water that they actually use, and the landlord does not know what that is until the water meter is read.
Any provision in a tenancy agreement where a tenant agrees to a term which creates a greater obligation on them than under the RTA is inconsistent with the RTA and is therefore of no effect unless the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction should be permitted. (See s11RTA).
The tenants seek a declaration that the rent increase of $500.00 is $475.00 for rent and $25.00 for water. In other words they are asking the Tribunal to permit a term of the tenancy agreement which would be inconsistent with RTA in that it requires the tenant to pay for water in advance, I decline to do that.
Section 85(2) of the RTA provides: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
I consider that this is an appropriate case where s85(2) should be used as there is a genuine dispute between the parties and there is no governing specific law as to how disputes such as this one should be determined in the RTA.
Having considered all the evidence and the submissions made by each party, I consider it fair and reasonable that the rent is $500.00 per week inclusive of water from 11 July 2022. I say this for reasons that include: a. The tenants have paid $500.00 since 11 July 2022 in accordance with the increase notice. They understood that the water was included in that amount. b. All water had been paid in the one payment before 11 July 2022. c. When the landlord varies the agreement, such as increasing the rent it is beholden on the landlord to be explicit about the change. The previous description of rent in the tenancy agreement was “the rent together with the water shall be paid in advance amounting to $465.00”. The landlord should have anticipated that the rent should be expressed as being inclusive or exclusive of water in the rent increase notice. d. The amount of water per year is small over the past year it was $300.38. e. The landlord did not tell the tenant that they had stopped transferring $25.00 to the water account until November and by which time the time for challenging the rent increase had passed. f. It has now been a year since the last rent increase. If the landlord seeks to increase the rent again, then they can instigate that procedure.
Having found the rent is $500.00 per week inclusive of water, the tenant is not entitled to any refund of overpayment, and the tenant is not liable for any water rates since 11 July 2022.
I consider it appropriate to give both parties name suppression, whilst the subject matter is of public interest the identities of the parties is not. This was a genuine dispute between the parties where they used the Tribunal correctly to determine their dispute. Name suppression should be awarded in such cases if requested to encourage other parties with genuine disputes to use the Tribunal for declarations.
Given the nature and outcome of the application I have not awarded the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4541271. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details. 2. The rent increase of 11 July 2022	$500.00		and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details. 2. The rent increase of 11 July 2022

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
The rent increase of 11 July 2022 to $500.00 per week included water. The tenants are not liable for water from 11 July 2022.

Reasons

The tenants applied to the Tribunal for a declaration as to whether the rent increase beginning 11 July 2022 $500.00 included water rates of $25.00 per week or not .
The tenancy has been in place since 29 January 2018. The first term of the tenancy was fixed but the tenancy has now reverted to a periodic tenancy.
It is not disputed that the rent has been modest for the property. This is not a dispute about whether the rent exceeds market rent pursuant to s25, rather it is a question on interpretation of the tenancy agreement and other correspondence between the parties.
In the tenancy agreement the relevant clauses are: a. Paragraph 2 which states ‘rent together with water shall be paid in advance amounting to $465.00 per week (including $25.00 per week going to water payable to [The landlord/s]” b. Paragraph 6a “ the tenant shall pay the rent and water of $25.00 per week amounting to $465.00 every week and every rent day thereafter” c. Paragraph 6b “the tenant is responsible for all bill payments attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the property such as electricity, gas, telephone and internet charges.”
On the 2 May 2022 the landlords sent the tenant a letter increasing the rent the relevant section of the letter said. The new rent will be $500 per week and will take effect from 11 July 2022, which is not less than 180 days since the last increase, commencement of your tenant or less than 60 days from the date of this notice in accordance with section 24 RTA.
Up until the 11 July 2022 the landlord had received the tenants rent and put $440.00 into the rent ledger and $25.00 into the water ledger. Occasionally from time to time the amount for the water would be in credit and the landlord would refund the tenant the excess. The last time that this occurred was on the 12 May 2022.
After the 11 July 2022 the landlord attributed the whole $500.00 paid by the tenants to rent, with no money going to water. The landlord then sought payment of the water rates from the tenant on the 9 November 2022. The tenants had until then thought that the landlord was paying $475.00 towards the rent and putting $25.00 into the water account. The tenants say that they understood that the rent increase of 2 May to $500.00 included $25.00 towards water and that the landlord was increasing the rent from $440 to $475.00 and leaving the water at $25.00 per week, thereby increasing the total from $465.00 to $500.00.
The tenants seek confirmation from the Tribunal that the rental is $475.00 per week with an additional $25.00 for water making a total of $500.00.
The landlord says that the rent increase is clear the rent is being increased to $500 not the rent and water. The landlord says the tenant’s obligation to pay water is in addition to the obligation to pay rent.
Both parties told me at the hearing on the 3 July that they accept that they did not discuss the rent increase between 11 July 2022 and 9 November 2022 and in particular whether the $500.00 was just for rent or for rent and water.
The Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) provides that the tenant pays for the water that they use (see s39). There is no obligation to pay this money in advance. The landlord is sent the invoice from the water supplier and the fixed costs are deducted from the water invoice and the landlord sends the invoice to the tenant for payment. It is not uncommon for tenants to pay an amount towards water weekly for budgeting purposes, but the landlord cannot require them to do that because the tenant is only liable to pay for the water that they actually use, and the landlord does not know what that is until the water meter is read.
Any provision in a tenancy agreement where a tenant agrees to a term which creates a greater obligation on them than under the RTA is inconsistent with the RTA and is therefore of no effect unless the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction should be permitted. (See s11RTA).
The tenants seek a declaration that the rent increase of $500.00 is $475.00 for rent and $25.00 for water. In other words they are asking the Tribunal to permit a term of the tenancy agreement which would be inconsistent with RTA in that it requires the tenant to pay for water in advance, I decline to do that.
Section 85(2) of the RTA provides: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
I consider that this is an appropriate case where s85(2) should be used as there is a genuine dispute between the parties and there is no governing specific law as to how disputes such as this one should be determined in the RTA.
Having considered all the evidence and the submissions made by each party, I consider it fair and reasonable that the rent is $500.00 per week inclusive of water from 11 July 2022. I say this for reasons that include: a. The tenants have paid $500.00 since 11 July 2022 in accordance with the increase notice. They understood that the water was included in that amount. b. All water had been paid in the one payment before 11 July 2022. c. When the landlord varies the agreement, such as increasing the rent it is beholden on the landlord to be explicit about the change. The previous description of rent in the tenancy agreement was “the rent together with the water shall be paid in advance amounting to $465.00”. The landlord should have anticipated that the rent should be expressed as being inclusive or exclusive of water in the rent increase notice. d. The amount of water per year is small over the past year it was $300.38. e. The landlord did not tell the tenant that they had stopped transferring $25.00 to the water account until November and by which time the time for challenging the rent increase had passed. f. It has now been a year since the last rent increase. If the landlord seeks to increase the rent again, then they can instigate that procedure.
Having found the rent is $500.00 per week inclusive of water, the tenant is not entitled to any refund of overpayment, and the tenant is not liable for any water rates since 11 July 2022.
I consider it appropriate to give both parties name suppression, whilst the subject matter is of public interest the identities of the parties is not. This was a genuine dispute between the parties where they used the Tribunal correctly to determine their dispute. Name suppression should be awarded in such cases if requested to encourage other parties with genuine disputes to use the Tribunal for declarations.
Given the nature and outcome of the application I have not awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4541271 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4541271 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions