What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4604703 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 4604703?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4604703?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4604703?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9260675-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4604703 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 4604703?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4604703?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4604703?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9260675-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1 Daphne Street, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4604703 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay $717.88 of the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Solomon Realty Limited immediately, and is to pay the balance of $1,482.12 of the bond to [The tenant/s] immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The tenant/s], the applicant tenant, and Mr Collier, on behalf of the landlord, both attended the hearing.
The Tribunal must consider applications from both parties.
The tenant has applied for outgoings, compensation, refund bond, Healthy Homes Standards breach, and reimbursement of the filing fee. During the hearing, the tenant withdrew her claims for refund bond and Healthy Homes Standards breach.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The parties agreed that the tenancy ended on 2 June 2023 and that the tenant owes the landlord a total of $1,807.14 in rent arrears to 2 June 2023.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or return the keys. The tenant agreed to pay for the following: a. Cleaning of stains on the carpet in the amount of $564.09; b. Replacement of the keys in the amount of $22.00; c. Painting walls with drawings and markings on in the amount of $250.00 (no quote was provided by the landlord for this but the tenant still agreed to pay $250.00 to repair the walls).
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The landlord said that the tenant, at the end of the tenancy, removed and cleaned the curtains but did not rehang the curtains, requiring the time of somebody to do this. The tenant acknowledged that she removed and cleaned the curtains but did not rehang them. She said she left this for the new tenant to do. The landlord claimed 3 hours of time @ $55.00/hour to rehang the curtains, fix the missing curtain rod and replace 2 broken window handles. b. Mr Collier said that the tenant is responsible for 2 broken window handles – one in bedroom 1 and another in bedroom 2 at the property. The tenant said there were no broken window handles when she left the property. She acknowledged leaving a small gap in a bathroom window open when she left the property, so that the premises would be aired out after her departure but said that all window handles were fine when she left. There were no photographs provided by the landlord of the broken window handles at the end of the tenancy, nor any photographs of the condition of the window handles at the start of the tenancy. In the absence of any additional supporting evidence about the broken window handles, I find the landlord has not proved it more likely than not that the tenant broke the window handles. Thus, this claim is dismissed based on insufficient evidence. c. The landlord maintained that the tenant is responsible for a missing curtain rod. The tenant said that there was no missing curtain rod at the end of her tenancy. The landlord could not recall which room the curtain rod was missing from. There was no photograph provided by the landlord of where they alleged the curtain rod was missing from, nor any photographs of the curtain rod in question being in place at the start of the tenancy. Based on insufficient evidence, I find the landlord has not proved it more likely than not that there was a missing curtain rod at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. d. The landlord claimed 3 hours of time @ $55.00/hour to rehang the curtains, fix the missing curtain rod and replace 2 broken window handles. I have dismissed the landlord’s claims in relation to the curtain rod and window handles. I find the landlord has proved it more likely than not that the curtains needed to be rehung. I allow the landlord 1.5 hours @ $55.00 to rehang the curtains, for a sub-total of $82.50 plus GST for a total of $94.87 GST inclusive, which I find is a reasonable cost in the circumstances.
The amounts ordered are proved. Outgoings
There are two separate properties on the same land title, owned by the same owners and separately tenanted. Both houses are subject to separate tenancy agreements with different tenants. The landlord said the owners were told when they purchased the land in 2020 that there were two separate meters, one meter to each property on the land.
This tenancy started on 19 February 2021. Other tenants moved into the house next door shortly afterwards. Pursuant to the Tenancy Agreement, this tenant was responsible for payment of her own power and gas. She was told to register with a power provider, which she did. She said she was concerned at how high her power bills were, that she told the landlord that her living costs were high but didn’t expressly mention her high power bills. Then the tenant said, around 5 March 2023 she discovered that when new tenants moved into the house next door and registered for their own power, her power got switched off. After further investigation, it was found that there was only one power supply and account with two separate sub-meters. The tenant realised she had been paying for power for both her household and the next-door household, for their entire tenancy up to early March 2023, when new tenants moved in next door.
Mr Collier said an electrician attended the property around March or April 2023 and ascertained that there was one power account with two separate sub- meters. The situation then changed so that the landlord read each meter separately regularly to confirm what each tenant was using for power, after that information came to light.
The tenant wanted to claim against the landlord for having to pay for the power of the neighbouring tenancy, due to the power supply situation with only one power supply source and account with two sub-meters. The tenant calculated that she paid $12,500.75 in power for the entire period of her tenancy. Based on her first power bill in her new place after moving out of this property, she calculated that she uses an average of $168.00 worth of power monthly and so calculated $168.00/month x 28 months of her tenancy to be $4,704.00. Thus, she claimed $12,500.75 less $4,704.00, being $7,796.75 from the landlord for power she mistakenly paid for the next-door tenant during her tenancy.
Mr Collier provided a table for electricity and gas charges from 6 March 2023 to 5 June 2023 (after the meter reading situation was changed) and claimed that the tenant owes the landlord $329.80 for electricity for this period and $194.75 for gas, for a total of $524.55 for this period. He said no new tenant moved in between 2 June 2023 and 5 June 2023. This would equate to an average of $174.85 per month for power for this period, though Mr Collier noted that the tenant was not living at the property for around 13 days at the end of this period so it may be a low average. Notwithstanding this, it is another indicative figure of what the tenant more likely than not used for power per month, along with the tenant’s current power bill at another property. The range of her power bills using this information, would be around $168.00 to $175.00 per month, on average, though Mr Collier thought $175.00 to be on the low end. Therefore, the power bills the tenant was receiving during her tenancy, and before the sub- meter situation was discovered, were significantly out of range, some being up to $516.00 per month, for example.
The tenant has agreed to pay the landlord’s electricity claim of $329.80 for the period 6 March 2023 to 5 June 2023, given her usage was measured at this time. She disputes owing gas for this period, however, as she also received two gas bills directly from her own power provider for the periods 21 March 2023 to 18 April 2023 and for the period 19 April 2023 to 17 May 2023. She moved out around 17-19 May 2023, she recalled, despite her tenancy going until 2 June 2023 due to the notice period required.
As such, I find the landlord has not proved it more likely than not that the tenant owes them for gas from 6 March 2023 to 5 June 2023, when the tenant has likely paid for gas directly to her own power provider for the majority of this period. The landlord’s claim for gas for this period is therefore dismissed. The tenant is to pay the landlord $329.80 for electricity only for the period 6 March 2023 to 5 June 2023.
The tenant said she had made numerous and repeated efforts to sort out the incorrect power invoice issue with her own power providers over the period of her tenancy. She stated she was told time and again from her providers that they would not reimburse her for any overpayment, as she was responsible for all the power in that account, as the registered user of the power. She confirmed that she had to pay every bill sent to her by her power providers over her tenancy and went into debt because of this. Most particularly in the first year of her tenancy, she said that she and her children often lived without any heat or power, as they were too afraid to turn the power on, given how significantly expensive it was. She said it also resulted in her having less money to eat and feed her children and impacted her family significantly. She stated it was an extremely stressful time for them.
Section 39(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that the landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied, and for those incurred for common facilities.
Section 39(3) RTA provides that the tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. The tenant is responsible for electricity and gas incurred during the tenancy in respect of the premises, according to section 39(4) RTA.
This means that the tenant is not responsible for electricity and gas incurred by another tenancy, in respect of premises that are other than the tenancy premises, by implication.
Section 2 RTA defines ‘premises’ as including any part of the premises, and any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.
As such, a different dwelling on the same land is another means of shelter erected upon the land, as per the definition of ‘premises’ in section 2 RTA. Thus, in my view, the landlord then is to be responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are incurred for another dwelling on the same land as the tenancy premises.
Subsections 39(3) and (4) RTA makes it clear that a tenant is only to be responsible for the power they use in their own tenancy. Tenants are not responsible for funding the power bills of their neighbours.
Ordinarily, landlords can choose whether to bill tenants themselves separately from meter readings for different dwellings on the same land, when there is one power supply and one power bill (where the power bill comes to the landlord), or whether to ensure there are separate meters for each dwelling when they require tenants to register for their own power.
Here, the landlord required the tenants in each of the two dwellings on the land, separately tenanted, to register with their own power provider. However, the landlord did not confirm that there were separate meters to each dwelling on this land, unfortunately. Whilst the landlord said they were unaware of this, it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the provision of these facilities, especially if they expect tenants to register for their own power provider, and also given their own obligations pursuant to section 39(1) RTA. I find this failure by the landlord to ensure the power meters were split and made separate to each of the different tenanted dwellings on the same land resulted in a loss to the tenant.
The tenant said she paid a total of $12,500.75 in power for her tenancy up to 6 March 2023. An average for monthly power bills that the tenant likely used, as per the above estimations, of around $179.00/month (a slightly higher average due to the landlord’s concerns) x 28 months = $5,012.00. Therefore, I find from the evidence above that the tenant likely used around 40% of the total power billed to her by her power providers over the period of her tenancy to 6 March 2023.
However, the tenant has only provided power bills from 9 August 2021 to 5 March 2023, which total $3,916.69 to prove her claim in this regard. I do not consider here the tenant’s bills for gas only for the periods 21 March 2023 to 18 April 2023, and for 19 April 2023 to 17 May 2023, as these two gas bills have been already considered as part of the landlord’s claim for gas from the tenant for the period 6 March 2023 to 5 June 2023, and I have dismissed that claim.
Forty per cent of the total power bills provided and thus proved, of $3,916.69 comes to $1,566.67.
Section 39(1) RTA provides for the landlord to be responsible for all outgoings incurred in respect of the premises that are not the responsibility directly of the tenant, and the definition of ‘premises’ in section 2 RTA extends this to another dwelling on the same land, in my view. Further, the tenant has incurred an actual loss resulting from the failure of the landlord to split the power supply/account and ensure there were two separate power meters to each dwelling on the same land that could be billed separately. Therefore, I find the landlord is responsible for the remaining $2,350.02 of the total power bills proved by the tenant. The landlord is to pay the tenant $2,350.02 for the tenant’s payment of the power bill for the next-door tenancy from 9 August to 5 March 2023, the period covered in the power invoices provided by the tenant.
The landlord should reimburse the tenant for 60% of the cost of any additional power invoices she provides for the period of the tenancy, that have not already been provided and considered in this application. Should there be any issues in relation to this, the tenant can make further application for an order in relation to those additional power invoices. Bond
The tenant said she consented to the landlord receiving the full bond.
However, when calculating what the tenant owes the landlord, which comes to $3,067.90 and what the landlord owes the tenant, which comes to $2,350.02, the difference is that the tenant will owe the landlord $717.88.
Therefore, I order that the Bond Centre is to pay $717.88 of the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Solomon Realty Limited immediately and is to pay the balance of $1,482.12 of the bond to [The tenant/s] immediately. Filing Fee
As both parties have been successful in their claims, I do not reimburse the filing fee to either party. Suppression
The tenant requested suppression during the hearing. As she is successful in her claim, she is entitled to suppression as of right. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4604703 — Rent arrears at 1 Daphne Street, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

Tenancy Tribunal case 4604703 — Rent arrears at 1 Daphne Street, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?