What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4842067 about?

The tribunal order states: must pay immediately as set out in

How much money was awarded in case 4842067?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement For Excess Power Charg…: $2,080.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4842067?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4842067?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10568744-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4842067 about?

The tribunal order states: must pay immediately as set out in

How much money was awarded in case 4842067?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement For Excess Power Charg…: $2,080.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4842067?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4842067?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10568744-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1343A State Highway 16, Waimauku, RD 3, Waimauku Tenancy Tribunal Case 4842067 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4842067 — net $2,100.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimbursement for excess power charges	$2,080.00	Reimbursement for excess power charges
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,100.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,100.44

Order

must pay immediately as set out in the table below.
[The tenant/s] other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant made the following claims: a. The landlord did not provide a separate electricity metre for the tenant, and as a result the tenant has been over-charged for electricity. b. The landlord’s termination notice was retaliatory. c. The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre as he was required to do. d. The landlord charged more than two weeks’ rent in advance. e. The landlord must reimburse her for her moving costs. Over charged for electricity
The tenant says that at the beginning of the tenancy it was agreed that she would pay $400.00 per week rent and $50.00 per week for power.
The landlord says the $50.00 per week charge was to cover all utilities including power and gardens, a shelter for the tenant’s second car, and grazing for her horses.
The parties agree there was no separate electricity metre for the tenant’s premises, and that one electricity bill was received by the landlord for all the premises on the landlord’s property. The landlord was happy to provide the bills that he received for the tenant to peruse, but the electricity or utilities charge that the tenant paid remained constant at $50.00 per week.
The tenant is claiming $100.00 per month reimbursement for this payment over a period of 48 months that she lived at the property. That amounts to $4,800.00.
A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises, see Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) Section 39(3).
A strict application of this section would mean that the tenant does not have to pay anything at all for her use of the power at the property because it is not possible to exclusively attribute any of the electricity charges to her premises.
This would be inconsistent with section 85 of the RTA which provides the following: 85Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)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.
This was considered by His Honour Judge de Ridder in Geraghty & Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813, and then again in Urupani Raui v Leonie Jones & Lesley Geraghty [2019] NZTT Kaitaia 4142253. In the latter case the Tribunal found that the application of section 39(3) was fettered by section 85. This averted an unjust outcome in which the tenant would have paid no power over the term of their tenancy, and the landlord would have suffered a significant penalty in having to repay a substantial amount of money, some of which was clearly due for power costs.
In the latter case (NZTT 4142253) the Tribunal reimbursed the tenant’s power usage for a small flat at a rate of $90.00 per month. This was very close to the amount for the full power usage as found earlier in the decision.
I note there is no agreement between the parties as to what exactly the $50.00 payment covered. On the balance of probabilities, and in the absence of a written agreement about the payment, I find that payment was a general payment that covered the electricity, lawn mowing and other sundry utility costs that may have arisen.
There is no information before the Tribunal to establish the tenant’s electricity usage. The tenant for her part says she was frugal. Given it is the landlord’s not the tenant’s responsibility to install a check metre, and the landlord has not installed the check metre, I err on the side of caution in the tenant’s favour. I find the tenant should not be charged more than $20.00 per week for electricity. Of the remaining $30.00 per week I find that no more than $20.00 per week can be attributed to the other general utilities. I award the tenant a reduction in the utilities bill of $10.00 per week for the 48 months claimed. This amounts to $2,080.00. Retaliatory notice
On 27 February 2024, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 31 May 2024, pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) section 51(2)(f) so “extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs or redevelopment could be carried out and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is being carried out.” The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On 27 February the tenant requested a complete breakdown of the electricity bill for the duration of the tenancy so far. This was the same day on which the notice ending the tenancy was given.
The tenant claims that the closeness in time between her request for information from the landlord and the landlord giving notice of her tenancy ending, points to the likelihood of the notice being retaliatory.
The landlord denies the notice was retaliatory and says that within a week of the tenant vacating the premises, the roof had been removed. The landlord says the septic tank also needed repairs and new pipes, and work was required to get the property up to Healthy Homes standard. He says he had advice from his builder that the best way to do this was to not have a tenant living at the property.
The tenant says that even now she drives past the property twice a day and there has been no evidence of any work being done that could not have been undertaken while she was living there.
The landlord produced photographs showing a partially exposed roof, invoices for roofing and he stated that previously when he had undertaken work at the premises it had caused friction between himself and the tenant.
I accept the timing of the notice raises doubt about the landlord’s motives, but on the balance of probabilities the tenant has not proved that the notice was retaliatory. Clearly work on the premises was needed, and it has been sufficiently proved that it has been undertaken within statutory timeframes provided by the RTA. Failing to lodge bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. She claims that she paid the landlord $2,000.00 cash at the beginning of the tenancy and this was for the bond.
The landlord stated that the $2,000.00 payment was for four weeks rent in advance as well as a $200.00 gift that the tenant offered to him.
The tenancy agreement records an initial rent payment of $2,000.00 and records “nil” next to the bond.
A bank statement of the tenant, produced by the tenant shows a $2,000.00 cash withdrawal on 8 February 2020 and then a first payment of $450.00 rent to the landlord on 6 March 2020. 6 March 2020 is four weeks after the tenant moved in and indicates the $2,000.00 covered four weeks of rent and a $200.00 gift.
When I weigh the information provided, I am not persuaded the tenant paid a bond for the tenancy, and therefore I find the landlord has not breached the RTA by failing to lodge a bond. Requiring more than two weeks’ rent in advance
claims the landlord has required more than two weeks rent in advance or rent before the already paid rent expires.
A landlord must not require a tenant to pay more than two weeks in advance or rent before the already paid rent expires. See section 23(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 23(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepts that he required more than two weeks rent at the beginning of the tenancy, when the tenant made an upfront payment of $2,000.00. This was not an ongoing condition of the tenancy; within a month the breach was completely rectified. I note also the parties don’t agree on what the payment covered. I consider the breach to be of a technical nature.
Exemplary damages for unlawful acts are covered by 109 of the RTA. This section states that a party may not seek exemplary damages for an unlawful act of this nature, more than 12 months after the commission of the act. As this breach occurred in February 2020, the tenant is out of time and may not seek exemplary damages for this breach. Reimbursement for moving costs
The tenant claims $600.00 moving costs and $3,000.00 for the bond of her new tenancy.
Section 77 of the RTA includes the following provision: 77Jurisdiction of Tribunal 2)Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to do the following things: (n)to order the landlord or the tenant under any tenancy agreement to which this Act applies to pay to the other party such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act:
The tenant has not raised a breach by the landlord that could give rise to an award for these damages.
This claim is not proved.
Because has partially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4842067 — net $2,100.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimbursement for excess power charges	$2,080.00	Reimbursement for excess power charges
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,100.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,100.44

Order

must pay immediately as set out in the table below.
[The tenant/s] other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant made the following claims: a. The landlord did not provide a separate electricity metre for the tenant, and as a result the tenant has been over-charged for electricity. b. The landlord’s termination notice was retaliatory. c. The landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre as he was required to do. d. The landlord charged more than two weeks’ rent in advance. e. The landlord must reimburse her for her moving costs. Over charged for electricity
The tenant says that at the beginning of the tenancy it was agreed that she would pay $400.00 per week rent and $50.00 per week for power.
The landlord says the $50.00 per week charge was to cover all utilities including power and gardens, a shelter for the tenant’s second car, and grazing for her horses.
The parties agree there was no separate electricity metre for the tenant’s premises, and that one electricity bill was received by the landlord for all the premises on the landlord’s property. The landlord was happy to provide the bills that he received for the tenant to peruse, but the electricity or utilities charge that the tenant paid remained constant at $50.00 per week.
The tenant is claiming $100.00 per month reimbursement for this payment over a period of 48 months that she lived at the property. That amounts to $4,800.00.
A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises, see Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) Section 39(3).
A strict application of this section would mean that the tenant does not have to pay anything at all for her use of the power at the property because it is not possible to exclusively attribute any of the electricity charges to her premises.
This would be inconsistent with section 85 of the RTA which provides the following: 85Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)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.
This was considered by His Honour Judge de Ridder in Geraghty & Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813, and then again in Urupani Raui v Leonie Jones & Lesley Geraghty [2019] NZTT Kaitaia 4142253. In the latter case the Tribunal found that the application of section 39(3) was fettered by section 85. This averted an unjust outcome in which the tenant would have paid no power over the term of their tenancy, and the landlord would have suffered a significant penalty in having to repay a substantial amount of money, some of which was clearly due for power costs.
In the latter case (NZTT 4142253) the Tribunal reimbursed the tenant’s power usage for a small flat at a rate of $90.00 per month. This was very close to the amount for the full power usage as found earlier in the decision.
I note there is no agreement between the parties as to what exactly the $50.00 payment covered. On the balance of probabilities, and in the absence of a written agreement about the payment, I find that payment was a general payment that covered the electricity, lawn mowing and other sundry utility costs that may have arisen.
There is no information before the Tribunal to establish the tenant’s electricity usage. The tenant for her part says she was frugal. Given it is the landlord’s not the tenant’s responsibility to install a check metre, and the landlord has not installed the check metre, I err on the side of caution in the tenant’s favour. I find the tenant should not be charged more than $20.00 per week for electricity. Of the remaining $30.00 per week I find that no more than $20.00 per week can be attributed to the other general utilities. I award the tenant a reduction in the utilities bill of $10.00 per week for the 48 months claimed. This amounts to $2,080.00. Retaliatory notice
On 27 February 2024, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 31 May 2024, pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) section 51(2)(f) so “extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs or redevelopment could be carried out and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is being carried out.” The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On 27 February the tenant requested a complete breakdown of the electricity bill for the duration of the tenancy so far. This was the same day on which the notice ending the tenancy was given.
The tenant claims that the closeness in time between her request for information from the landlord and the landlord giving notice of her tenancy ending, points to the likelihood of the notice being retaliatory.
The landlord denies the notice was retaliatory and says that within a week of the tenant vacating the premises, the roof had been removed. The landlord says the septic tank also needed repairs and new pipes, and work was required to get the property up to Healthy Homes standard. He says he had advice from his builder that the best way to do this was to not have a tenant living at the property.
The tenant says that even now she drives past the property twice a day and there has been no evidence of any work being done that could not have been undertaken while she was living there.
The landlord produced photographs showing a partially exposed roof, invoices for roofing and he stated that previously when he had undertaken work at the premises it had caused friction between himself and the tenant.
I accept the timing of the notice raises doubt about the landlord’s motives, but on the balance of probabilities the tenant has not proved that the notice was retaliatory. Clearly work on the premises was needed, and it has been sufficiently proved that it has been undertaken within statutory timeframes provided by the RTA. Failing to lodge bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. She claims that she paid the landlord $2,000.00 cash at the beginning of the tenancy and this was for the bond.
The landlord stated that the $2,000.00 payment was for four weeks rent in advance as well as a $200.00 gift that the tenant offered to him.
The tenancy agreement records an initial rent payment of $2,000.00 and records “nil” next to the bond.
A bank statement of the tenant, produced by the tenant shows a $2,000.00 cash withdrawal on 8 February 2020 and then a first payment of $450.00 rent to the landlord on 6 March 2020. 6 March 2020 is four weeks after the tenant moved in and indicates the $2,000.00 covered four weeks of rent and a $200.00 gift.
When I weigh the information provided, I am not persuaded the tenant paid a bond for the tenancy, and therefore I find the landlord has not breached the RTA by failing to lodge a bond. Requiring more than two weeks’ rent in advance
claims the landlord has required more than two weeks rent in advance or rent before the already paid rent expires.
A landlord must not require a tenant to pay more than two weeks in advance or rent before the already paid rent expires. See section 23(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 23(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepts that he required more than two weeks rent at the beginning of the tenancy, when the tenant made an upfront payment of $2,000.00. This was not an ongoing condition of the tenancy; within a month the breach was completely rectified. I note also the parties don’t agree on what the payment covered. I consider the breach to be of a technical nature.
Exemplary damages for unlawful acts are covered by 109 of the RTA. This section states that a party may not seek exemplary damages for an unlawful act of this nature, more than 12 months after the commission of the act. As this breach occurred in February 2020, the tenant is out of time and may not seek exemplary damages for this breach. Reimbursement for moving costs
The tenant claims $600.00 moving costs and $3,000.00 for the bond of her new tenancy.
Section 77 of the RTA includes the following provision: 77Jurisdiction of Tribunal 2)Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to do the following things: (n)to order the landlord or the tenant under any tenancy agreement to which this Act applies to pay to the other party such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act:
The tenant has not raised a breach by the landlord that could give rise to an award for these damages.
This claim is not proved.
Because has partially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4842067 — Tenancy dispute at 1343A State Highway 16, Waimauku, RD 3, Waimauku

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4842067 — Tenancy dispute at 1343A State Highway 16, Waimauku, RD 3, Waimauku

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