What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4713069 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4713069?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713069?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9844493-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4713069 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4713069?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4713069?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4713069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9844493-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4713069 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant moved into a studio apartment on 30 June 2023. She claims the apartment was draughty because of four holes around the aluminium joinery. She has brought a claim for two power bills which she claims were excessive as a result of the draughts. The landlord installed draught stopping but does not agree to pay compensation.

The first question I have to decide is whether the tenant has proved the power bills were excessive. I can then consider whether the tenant has proved the apartment was draughty.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Has the tenant proved the power bills were excessive?

The tenant’s only claim is for just over $200 for the power bills. The tenant provided the landlord and I with copies of her power accounts from her previous tenancy, and from 30 June 2023 to 9 January 2024. Her submission is that these show her usual power usage in her last studio apartment and the excessive power usage for the current tenancy premises.

I accept the landlord’s submission that there are too many variables for me to rely on the previous power accounts as showing a standard cost for electricity.

The landlord has considered the bills for the current tenancy and calculated a daily rate for each billing period. He has calculated the daily rate from 30 June to 7 August at $3.91 a day. Additional draught stopping was provided on 30 August. The daily rate for the power account from 8 September to 6 October was $3.26 per day. This means there was no appreciable difference between the power accounts before and after the draught stopping was carried out. These calculations were discussed at the hearing and were not challenged by the tenant.

I am not persuaded the tenant has proved she had to pay for excessive power bills at the start of her tenancy. This means she has not proved her claim and it is dismissed.

This also means I do not need to make a finding about whether or not the apartment was draughty when the tenant moved in. Suppression

Both parties made an application for suppression. The landlord is the most successful party and suppression is allowed. The tenant’s application is also allowed because there has been no breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), and parties are encouraged to use the Tribunal to resolve disputes. See section 95A RTA.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The first question I have to decide is whether the tenant has proved the power bills were excessive. I can then consider whether the tenant has proved the apartment was draughty.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Has the tenant proved the power bills were excessive?

I accept the landlord’s submission that there are too many variables for me to rely on the previous power accounts as showing a standard cost for electricity.

I am not persuaded the tenant has proved she had to pay for excessive power bills at the start of her tenancy. This means she has not proved her claim and it is dismissed.

This also means I do not need to make a finding about whether or not the apartment was draughty when the tenant moved in. Suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713069 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4713069 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant proved the power bills were excessive?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant proved the power bills were excessive?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions