What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4881164 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 4881164?

Compensation: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4881164?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4881164?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10563296-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4881164 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 4881164?

Compensation: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4881164?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4881164?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10563296-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

48B Crawford Avenue, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4881164 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4881164 — net $470.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$450.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$470.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$470.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
must pay [The tenant/s] immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 8 July 2024. Ms Perese attended for Kainga Ora.
The tenant has lived in the home since July 2022 with her two children.
The tenant is seeking compensation from the landlord because she says that she had to pay higher electricity bills from June 2023 to January 2024 because of the landlord’s failure to investigate and repair a faulty hot water cylinder. The tenant is seeking $1242.33 being the tenant’s calculated difference between her power bills in 2022 and those in 2023.
The tenant submits that she was paying $45 a week to Genesis for power to her home. She said that she had paid this amount for several years as it always ended up in credit in December, and she usually withdrew that credit and used it for Christmas presents for her children. The tenant provided account evidence that supported her statement. The tenant said that she checked the account in early December expecting to see it in credit but was shocked to find that she was in debit because her power bills since July had been well in excess of the usual amount. The tenant said she was very upset to find this out as she was very careful about her use of power in the household and could not understand why her power bill was so high, when she had not been using power any differently.
The tenant asked her father what might be the problem, he came to the property and checked everything and the only thing he could suggest was the hot water cylinder, but there was no obvious leaks that could be observed from the hot water cylinder.
The tenant says she tried to call her landlord but as it was around Christmas time, she says her landlord had an automated message which said that staff were on leave and that unless it was an emergency to call back after Christmas 1 . The tenant said it was not an ‘emergency’ so she called back on the 3 January.
The landlord sent an electrician to the property on the 4 January who asked for a plumber to be called as they suspected a problem with the hot water cylinder. The plumber and the electrician diagnosed the problem as a leaking hot water cylinder, this meant that the cylinder was continuously being ‘filled up’ with cold water, causing the hot water cylinder to continuously heat the water, which was using a large amount of electricity.
Since the repair the tenant’s power bills have been restored to their usual amount.
The tenant claims that the landlord should be responsible for the increase in power bills because the landlord receives the water bill for this property, the increase in the water usage should have alerted the landlord that there was a problem at the property. If the landlord had told the tenant about the increase in water or had investigated, it then the problem would have been identified sooner. The tenant is in effect claiming that the landlord has not investigated a suspected defect at the property and therefore not properly maintained the property. 1 This is not disputed by the landlord.
There are two corresponding obligations relating to maintenance in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s40(1)(d) requires a tenant to notify the landlord of any defects or items for repair that arise in the course of tenancy at the property. S45(1)(b) requires the landlord to provide and maintain the property including chattels in a reasonable state of repair.
S49 RTA is also relevant as it requires each party to mitigate its loss.
The requirement to maintain is not absolute, the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. 2 However if it can be proven that a competent landlord conducting regular inspections and review of the property would have or should have noticed the defect this may be a failure to maintain. 3 The cases which determined these legal principles also involved leaking hot water cylinders, in both cases the landlord/ body corporate argued that the landlord/ body corporate should not be responsible for the repair because the defect was not apparent. In the Barfoot and Thompson v Casey case the Judge agreed with the Tribunal’s decision that a reasonably competent landlord would have or should have investigated the leaking hot water cylinder, given the damp smell the permeated the property.
Kainga Ora has a policy of inspecting the property once a year. The property was last inspected in March 2023, when there was no defect with the hot water cylinder.
Kainga Ora accepts that the damage was not obvious to the tenant, the hot water cylinder was not able to be easily observed as leaking, and that there would have been an increase to the water consumption that if the tenant had been receiving water rates may have alerted her to a problem with the hot water cylinder.
Kainga Ora says that the tenant also had an obligation to notify them of the excessive power bills which would have caused them to investigate further.
There is merit in both positions, Kainga Ora had an obligation to inspect the property and given the age of the hot water cylinder, and the highwater consumption should have done so earlier. 4 The tenant should have checked the power bills monthly and raised the issue with the landlord sooner when she could not find another reason for the power bill being so unusually high.
S85 (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. 2 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV 2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [28] to [36] also city Body Corporate NO 126001 v Chen [1998] DCR 270. 3 As above at paragraph 47. 4 It is noted that most insurance companies require private landlords to undertake quarterly inspections so that issues such as leaks are detected quickly and damage is mitigated.
I consider this an appropriate situation to apply section 85(2) RTA because it would be unfair on the tenant to make her solely responsible for power bills caused as a result by a faulty hot water cylinder that was the landlord’s responsible, but likewise I consider it unfair that Kainga Ora bears the sole burden of the increase in power when that issue was not brought to its attention by the tenant.
The tenant has provided me with all her power accounts, I am able to compare the months of September 2023 to January 2024 with the previous years. The total for the same period in 2022 was $825.12 the total for 2023/4 was $1601.46, even taking into account the well-publicised increase in the cost of electricity between these two years this increase was extraordinary.
Taking into account the merits and justice of the case and applying the competing legal obligations, I am satisfied that Kainga Ora should pay $450 towards the tenant’s power bills. This takes into account that the provision of the hot water cylinder was the landlord’s responsibility and that the tenant had an obligation to check her power bills and to bring any cause for concern to the landlord’s attention, and in my view should have done so earlier. Tenants should check their power bills monthly and investigate significant increases.
It is not lost on me that the power company appears to have done nothing to bring the unusually high monthly account to the attention of the tenant. This can be contrasted with Watercare who will write to the householder and advise them to check for leaks or damage if the water reading is significantly higher 5 . It would be helpful if power companies raised unusual consumption with householders and encouraged them to look for defective devices such as hot water cylinders so that these types of issues are remedied quickly. I note that Watercare has a leak rebate system for leaks that are undetected, it does not appear that power companies offer the same assistance of a rebate scheme when the increase in power was caused as a result of defect in the home. This is probably due to a number of factors influencing the increase in power consumption including the time of use, the type of use and the age and efficiency of the appliance being used.
I also consider that Kainga Ora should inform their tenants, most of whom may be unfamiliar that a leak in the hot water cylinder can cause the water to continuously heat, raising their power consumption, about this issue and to ask them to alert Kainga Ora if they notice more than a 20 % increase in their monthly invoices compared to the same month in the previous years. This is especially so for tenants who have older hot water cylinders which are prone to leaking. 5 There is no evidence in this case that Watercare did this with this household and that may be because of the commercial contract it has with Kainga Ora. Tenants should be asked at each inspection and educated on what the signs are of defective hot water cylinders. Filing fee and name suppression.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and have granted her name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4881164 — net $470.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$450.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$470.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$470.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
must pay [The tenant/s] immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 8 July 2024. Ms Perese attended for Kainga Ora.
The tenant has lived in the home since July 2022 with her two children.
The tenant is seeking compensation from the landlord because she says that she had to pay higher electricity bills from June 2023 to January 2024 because of the landlord’s failure to investigate and repair a faulty hot water cylinder. The tenant is seeking $1242.33 being the tenant’s calculated difference between her power bills in 2022 and those in 2023.
The tenant submits that she was paying $45 a week to Genesis for power to her home. She said that she had paid this amount for several years as it always ended up in credit in December, and she usually withdrew that credit and used it for Christmas presents for her children. The tenant provided account evidence that supported her statement. The tenant said that she checked the account in early December expecting to see it in credit but was shocked to find that she was in debit because her power bills since July had been well in excess of the usual amount. The tenant said she was very upset to find this out as she was very careful about her use of power in the household and could not understand why her power bill was so high, when she had not been using power any differently.
The tenant asked her father what might be the problem, he came to the property and checked everything and the only thing he could suggest was the hot water cylinder, but there was no obvious leaks that could be observed from the hot water cylinder.
The tenant says she tried to call her landlord but as it was around Christmas time, she says her landlord had an automated message which said that staff were on leave and that unless it was an emergency to call back after Christmas 1 . The tenant said it was not an ‘emergency’ so she called back on the 3 January.
The landlord sent an electrician to the property on the 4 January who asked for a plumber to be called as they suspected a problem with the hot water cylinder. The plumber and the electrician diagnosed the problem as a leaking hot water cylinder, this meant that the cylinder was continuously being ‘filled up’ with cold water, causing the hot water cylinder to continuously heat the water, which was using a large amount of electricity.
Since the repair the tenant’s power bills have been restored to their usual amount.
The tenant claims that the landlord should be responsible for the increase in power bills because the landlord receives the water bill for this property, the increase in the water usage should have alerted the landlord that there was a problem at the property. If the landlord had told the tenant about the increase in water or had investigated, it then the problem would have been identified sooner. The tenant is in effect claiming that the landlord has not investigated a suspected defect at the property and therefore not properly maintained the property. 1 This is not disputed by the landlord.
There are two corresponding obligations relating to maintenance in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s40(1)(d) requires a tenant to notify the landlord of any defects or items for repair that arise in the course of tenancy at the property. S45(1)(b) requires the landlord to provide and maintain the property including chattels in a reasonable state of repair.
S49 RTA is also relevant as it requires each party to mitigate its loss.
The requirement to maintain is not absolute, the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. 2 However if it can be proven that a competent landlord conducting regular inspections and review of the property would have or should have noticed the defect this may be a failure to maintain. 3 The cases which determined these legal principles also involved leaking hot water cylinders, in both cases the landlord/ body corporate argued that the landlord/ body corporate should not be responsible for the repair because the defect was not apparent. In the Barfoot and Thompson v Casey case the Judge agreed with the Tribunal’s decision that a reasonably competent landlord would have or should have investigated the leaking hot water cylinder, given the damp smell the permeated the property.
Kainga Ora has a policy of inspecting the property once a year. The property was last inspected in March 2023, when there was no defect with the hot water cylinder.
Kainga Ora accepts that the damage was not obvious to the tenant, the hot water cylinder was not able to be easily observed as leaking, and that there would have been an increase to the water consumption that if the tenant had been receiving water rates may have alerted her to a problem with the hot water cylinder.
Kainga Ora says that the tenant also had an obligation to notify them of the excessive power bills which would have caused them to investigate further.
There is merit in both positions, Kainga Ora had an obligation to inspect the property and given the age of the hot water cylinder, and the highwater consumption should have done so earlier. 4 The tenant should have checked the power bills monthly and raised the issue with the landlord sooner when she could not find another reason for the power bill being so unusually high.
S85 (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. 2 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV 2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [28] to [36] also city Body Corporate NO 126001 v Chen [1998] DCR 270. 3 As above at paragraph 47. 4 It is noted that most insurance companies require private landlords to undertake quarterly inspections so that issues such as leaks are detected quickly and damage is mitigated.
I consider this an appropriate situation to apply section 85(2) RTA because it would be unfair on the tenant to make her solely responsible for power bills caused as a result by a faulty hot water cylinder that was the landlord’s responsible, but likewise I consider it unfair that Kainga Ora bears the sole burden of the increase in power when that issue was not brought to its attention by the tenant.
The tenant has provided me with all her power accounts, I am able to compare the months of September 2023 to January 2024 with the previous years. The total for the same period in 2022 was $825.12 the total for 2023/4 was $1601.46, even taking into account the well-publicised increase in the cost of electricity between these two years this increase was extraordinary.
Taking into account the merits and justice of the case and applying the competing legal obligations, I am satisfied that Kainga Ora should pay $450 towards the tenant’s power bills. This takes into account that the provision of the hot water cylinder was the landlord’s responsibility and that the tenant had an obligation to check her power bills and to bring any cause for concern to the landlord’s attention, and in my view should have done so earlier. Tenants should check their power bills monthly and investigate significant increases.
It is not lost on me that the power company appears to have done nothing to bring the unusually high monthly account to the attention of the tenant. This can be contrasted with Watercare who will write to the householder and advise them to check for leaks or damage if the water reading is significantly higher 5 . It would be helpful if power companies raised unusual consumption with householders and encouraged them to look for defective devices such as hot water cylinders so that these types of issues are remedied quickly. I note that Watercare has a leak rebate system for leaks that are undetected, it does not appear that power companies offer the same assistance of a rebate scheme when the increase in power was caused as a result of defect in the home. This is probably due to a number of factors influencing the increase in power consumption including the time of use, the type of use and the age and efficiency of the appliance being used.
I also consider that Kainga Ora should inform their tenants, most of whom may be unfamiliar that a leak in the hot water cylinder can cause the water to continuously heat, raising their power consumption, about this issue and to ask them to alert Kainga Ora if they notice more than a 20 % increase in their monthly invoices compared to the same month in the previous years. This is especially so for tenants who have older hot water cylinders which are prone to leaking. 5 There is no evidence in this case that Watercare did this with this household and that may be because of the commercial contract it has with Kainga Ora. Tenants should be asked at each inspection and educated on what the signs are of defective hot water cylinders. Filing fee and name suppression.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and have granted her name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4881164 — Tenancy dispute at 48B Crawford Avenue, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4881164 — Tenancy dispute at 48B Crawford Avenue, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions