What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4701115 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 4701115?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4701115?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9605489-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4701115 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 4701115?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4701115?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9605489-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2053 Wharerata Road, Muriwai, RD 2, Manutuke 4072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4701115 — Leaks

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s names and identifying details.
The claim against [The tenant’s wife] is struck out.
All claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative] and [The owner/s] all attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. [Tenant 1], and [The tenant’s wife] both attended the hearing on behalf of the tenant.
The landlord has applied for outgoings, breach of the tenancy agreement and refund of the application fee. The tenant cross-applied for other miscellaneous orders. [The tenant’s wife] is not named as a tenant on the Tenancy Agreement and so the claim against her was struck out, by consent. Background
[Tenant 1] moved into the property on 19 August 2022 with his family. The parties disagree about whether there was a verbal agreement between [The owner/s], and [Tenant 1], about how power was to be paid by [Tenant 1]. The Tenancy Agreement provides for the tenant to make his own arrangements with a power supplier in relation to power at the property. In August 2023, a year after the tenancy began, the landlord asked the tenant to pay for power for the first time since the start of the tenancy and requested payment by the tenant for power of $4,021.25. The tenant was provided with some calculations from [The owner/s] as to how [The owner/s] came to his figures for the power, which the tenant queried. The landlord then filed a claim with the Tribunal for the power payment and for the tenant breaching the Tenancy Agreement by undertaking repairs and maintenance without the landlord’s consent. The tenant cross- applied for other miscellaneous orders but did not claim the costs of his repairs and maintenance of the property. What was the parties’ agreement about payment of power by the tenant?
The Tenancy Agreement provides that the tenant is to arrange for power with a power supplier directly.
The landlord said [The owner/s] made a verbal agreement with the tenant at the start of the tenancy about how power would be apportioned. The tenant denied there had been any verbal agreement with [The owner/s] about this and said he was waiting to be told by the landlord about what the power situation was. [Tenant 1] said he thought he was to sign up with his own power supplier. When [Tenant 1] did not hear back from the landlord after his tenancy began, and given the tenant was helping maintain the property without payment, he thought that his work at the property might be considered by the landlord to offset any power owing. However, he said he did not have any communication from the landlord about whether he was able to set up power with his own supplier or whether there was another power arrangement.
There are three dwellings on this property – the main house, where the tenant resides, a cottage and a cabin. The landlord said there are 3 meters which attach to the main house – one for hot water and two for power – and there are 2 meters for each of the cottage and the cabin – one for hot water and one for power. The landlord said they get an occupant at the cottage to read all the meters once a month and provide those meter readings to the owner. [The owner/s] then receives monthly invoices from the power supplier and attempts to apportion the power charges as between each of the three dwellings.
[The owner/s] said he finds it difficult to be accurate, as the meter readings taken generally turn up on the following month’s power bill. Despite being asked a few times why he did not provide monthly invoices to the tenant but waited a year before asking for any power payment, [The owner/s] said he has been waiting for the figures to be accurate.
[The owner/s] said further that he takes the monthly fixed charge on each power bill and divides it equally between all three dwellings.
[The owner/s] believed that his power calculations, which were provided by the landlord in detail, as were the power invoices, and which form the basis of what he charged the tenant for power, come to within 97% accuracy of the power invoices over a 12-month period, and that the power costs for each tenant in the three dwellings at the property level out over time.
The tenant said he disputed the calculations used by [The owner/s] and the figures were incorrect. When [Tenant 1] went back to the property manager to ask for clarification of this, setting out his version of what each month’s power charges should be for him, he said he did not get an answer. He did not wish to sit down and discuss this with the landlord, as the situation had deteriorated between them in the interim. He said he was next served with the landlord’s Tribunal claim, where the landlord’s calculations for power that were filed turned out to be approximately $1,000.00 more than the landlord’s first calculations given to him, which he said were about $3,000.00 for the year.
[Tenant 1] had further concerns about whether the power he was being billed for was only attributable to his use. He said there was extra power used by the water pump over the last year due to the landlord not fixing leaks in the toilets in a timely manner, that there is power used by the water pump each time it pumps water to the cabin and that power is charged to him, that he believed he paid for the cabin’s hot water, he was unsure how the power for the electric fence was charged, and he did not believe he should be paying for fixed charges.
The landlord acknowledged the power used by the water pump pumping water to the cabin is charged to the tenant at the main house but clarified the hot water cylinder is mostly turned off and the cabin is only occupied every few weeks. The landlord said further that power for the electric fence is charged to the cottage and not the main house.
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 is occupied and that are incurred for common facilities.
Section 39(1) RTA means that landlords only are responsible for any fixed charges on power bills and for common facilities at a property.
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.
Section 39(4) RTA provides that the tenant is responsible for electricity and gas incurred during the tenancy in respect of the premises. This is to be read in conjunction with section 39(3) RTA.
The landlord acknowledged they are apportioning the fixed charges on the power bills as between the tenants in the three dwellings at the property, including the main house where this tenant resides. This is in breach of section 39(1) RTA.
The landlord discussed the difficulty in assuring 100% accuracy in the power bills they are charging the clients and said the accuracy of their bills to the tenant level out over a 12-month period. The landlord did not charge the tenant for any power for the first 12 months of the tenancy. The tenant disputed whether there was any verbal agreement with the landlord as to apportionment of any power bills, as he had been expecting to sign up for power with his own power supplier, as per the Tenancy Agreement.
I find the landlord sought to vary the clause in the Tenancy Agreement providing for the tenant to access his own power supplier, by billing the tenant separately and attempting to apportion the overall power bills for all three dwellings at the property between those tenants. As the parties disputed agreeing to this verbally, in the absence of any additional supporting evidence from the landlord affirming such a verbal agreement, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove there was any such verbal agreement about billing the tenant for power in this way, outside of the Tenancy Agreement.
As the landlord has acknowledged including fixed charges in their bill to the tenant for power, and has also acknowledged the accuracy of what has been billed is somewhat in question, as their calculations for power for the tenant level off over a 12-month period, and based on the evidence that there were two sets of power calculations provided to the tenant that were $1,000.00 different, and that there are charges for the cabin’s use of the water pump on this tenant’s power bill, I find there is insufficient evidence provided by the landlord to prove that what is claimed is likely solely attributable to the tenant’s use or is accurate. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for outgoings is dismissed.
The landlord should be aware that the District Court has said that utility bills are to be provided to tenants as and when these charges fall due, so that tenants may make any challenges to the supplier they think appropriate and arrange for payment in a timely fashion. Breach of the tenancy agreement
The landlord alleged that the tenant was in breach of the tenancy agreement by undertaking repairs and maintenance at the property, without the landlord’s express consent. They pointed to the tenant repairing two toilets at the property.
The tenant said he had been forced to make emergency repairs to the toilets at the property when they began flooding and he could not get an answer from the landlord about whether the landlord was arranging for emergency repair. [Tenant 1] pointed to section 45(1)(d) RTA outlining the landlord’s responsibility to compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and is serious or urgent.
[The landlord’s representative] said the landlord was looking for an assurance that any future repairs or maintenance by the tenant would only be undertaken with the landlord’s express consent. [Tenant 1] said he was happy to give such an undertaking. Both parties agreed that any such consent should be in writing, to avoid any doubt. The landlord did not seek any further order regarding the alleged breach of the tenancy agreement. As such, this claim is also dismissed.
[Tenant 1], in his counterclaim, clarified he was not seeking payment for any of the invoices he filed detailing the repairs and maintenance he has carried out at the property. Therefore, the counterclaim is also dismissed.
As neither the landlord nor the tenant has been successful with the claim, I do not reimburse the filing fee to either party.
During the hearing, both parties requested suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
This is a current, ongoing tenancy. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were open to attempting to work through their issues and communicate more constructively. On this basis, I find the interests of the parties outweigh the public interest in publishing either of their names. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s and the tenant’s names and identifying details are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4701115 — Leaks at 2053 Wharerata Road, Muriwai, RD 2, Manutuke 4072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4701115 — Leaks at 2053 Wharerata Road, Muriwai, RD 2, Manutuke 4072

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions