What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4914997 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 4914997?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4914997?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4914997?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11635854-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4914997 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 4914997?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4914997?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4914997?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11635854-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4914997 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
The tenants are solely liable to the landlord for the water rates incurred (not the fixed fee) in the February, March and April 2024 invoices. The landlord is to provide the tenants with an invoice for this amount by the 3 April 2025 together with a copy of the water rates invoices from [water utility company].
If either party disputes the amount of the [water utility company] invoices for that period (February, March April 2024) then they are to notify the registry and the matter will be placed in front of me for determination on the papers after receiving written submissions from both parties.
The landlord is to bear the cost of the January and May 2024 water rates.
The remaining claims for outgoings filed by both parties are struck out as they have already been determined in my decision of the [redacted].
The tenant’s claim that the landlord assaulted her on the 19 April 2024 has not been proven and is dismissed.

Reasons

This is the continuation of the remaining claims to be heard under this application number. I refer to my decision of the 5 December 2024.
The parties were parties in previous Tribunal applications [redacted] which were heard by me and a decision in respect of those claims was issued on the [redacted]. 1
This tenancy relationship has been acrimonious. There have been many hearings within the Tribunal to deal with the parties claims against each other.
The remaining claims to be heard are: a. The landlord’s claims for reimbursement of the power and the water. b. The tenant’s claims for electricity power, water and wifi. c. The tenant’s claim that the landlord assaulted the tenant on the 19 April 2024. Water, power and wifi
The claims in respect of the power water and wifi relate to a time where the landlord had another tenant in the downstairs unit (that tenant had lived in the unit when the landlord lived in the tenancy premises and arrangements had been made between the downstairs tenant and the landlord over how the power, water and wifi would be calculated). In application [redacted], both parties made claims in respect of the water, power and internet, those claims are essentially the same as the ones that the parties now make.
In my order of the [redacted] made orders in respect of the outgoings, I said: Did the landlord charge the tenants for water, power or internet not exclusively used by them? The tenants says that the landlord charged them for water, power and internet that was not strictly used by them. They say that the landlord divided the water bill by the number by three during the time there was a tenant in the downstairs flat. 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 premises. When there are more than one set of tenants or users drawing from the same water, power, and internet, it cannot be said that the outgoings are not the tenant’s exclusive use, and the tenant is not strictly liable for those outgoings. The District Court in Geraghty & Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813 determined that the Tribunal should refer to s 85 RTA in disputes such as these. Section 85 RTA provides: (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; 1 After two hearings in February and March 2024. (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. There is an argument that whilst a strict legal application of s39(3) means that the tenants should not have to pay any of the outgoings they shared with the downstairs flat, an application of the principle of determining the matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case, and what is the ‘fair’ result would mean that the tenants should pay their fair share of the outgoings. I am satisfied that having regard to the substantial merits and justice of the case that it was fair for the landlord and the tenants to divide the water, power and internet bills between three over the time that the third tenant (T) was in occupation of the downstairs flat. To do otherwise would mean that the tenants would have essentially had free water for the tenancy. Green v McGregor [2015] NZTT Waitakere 1292 at [12]. The tenants and the landlord have already reconciled the water, power and internet accounts in the above way and therefore no further orders are needed. (own emphasis)
Both parties are essentially claiming that the settlement agreement and reconciliation that they made where the landlord agreed to reimburse the tenant $1797.35 for power, water and internet was incorrect.
The tenants say that the reconciliation did not include the electricity incurred by the downstairs tenant in December 2024 whilst the downstairs tenant was still at the property and did not include Wi-Fi, which was apaid for by the tenants, but that the downstairs tenant used as well. The downstairs tenant says she paid the landlord for the Wifi and the tenants say that it is unconscionable that the landlord should be paid money by her downstairs tenant for the wifi, when the landlord was not paying the wifi account.
The landlord says that my order and analysis meant that she should not have had to repay the tenants the amounts that she did, she seeks a refund of the amount that she paid of $1797.35 paid on the 13 February 2024.
I have considered the submissions extensively by both parties. As mentioned in my order of [redacted] the way that these accounts are to be calculated is not an exact science, but rather is an assessment of what is fair.
There is a principle in law that says that once a matter is decided by a Court or Tribunal then it cannot be relitigated. I am satisfied that each party’s claims in respect of who was liable for what outgoings for the period where there was a downstairs tenant was determined by me in my order of [redacted] because I accepted the reconciliation of the accounts and the payment by the landlord to the tenant as an end of the claims that each of them had against each other for outgoings. No orders were necessary because the landlord had already paid the tenant the amount agreed.
Neither party has any basis to now relitigate their claims for power and water or other outgoings, such as internet whilst the downstairs tenant was in place. I am satisfied that the issues of the liability for water, electricity and wifi whist the downstairs tenant was in place was determined in my decision of the [redacted] and therefore both the landlord’s claim for reimbursement of the amount paid and the tenant’s claim for miscalculation and reimbursement of the wifi are struck out. Outgoings since the downstairs tenant left (not determined by me in my decision of the [redacted]).
Since the downstairs tenant left, the usage portions of water bill and electricity bill and wifi are the sole responsibility of the tenant. The landlord has invoiced the tenant for that amount, but the tenant has not paid the invoice, as they were waiting for this hearing. 2
The January 2024 water bill is for a period whilst the downstairs tenant was in the property. As no water meter reading was completed at the end of the downstairs tenant’s tenancy then there is no way of demining exactly who should be liable for what. The downstairs tenant’s tenancy ended in mid-December.
I consider it fair that the landlord bears the December 2023 invoice in its entirety because the downstairs tenant would have used some electricity for this time as well.
A special water reading was not completed at the end of the tenant’s tenancy. Given that the landlord did use some water and electricity 3 (paid for by the tenant) on the 19 April. I consider it fair that the landlord should bear the cost of the May 2024 bill as well.
The tenant is liable for the consumption portions of the [water utility company] bill for February, March and April 2024. I do not have those invoices so cannot calculate the amount owing. I have made orders to facilitate the payment of the orders. I trust that it will not be necessary to have further Tribunal orders on how much the tenants owe, but if the parties are in dispute with each other over that matter, then this is an issue which can be dealt with me on the papers with each parties written submission. There is no need to take up further tribunal hearing time or the parties time in dealing with this issue.

Did the landlord assault the tenant?

The tenant claims that the landlord assaulted her in on the 19 April 2024. The landlord and her brother in law came to the downstairs flat to clean the flat as she was moving her own items into the property. The landlord gave notice to the tenant that she would be at the flat on this day. 2 I do not have a copy of all of the invoices. 3 The tenant claims that the landlord left a downstairs outside light on that she could not turn off.
The landlord started using a rug doctor in the downstairs unit and the tenant came down to tell the landlord to turn the rug doctor off and the lights off as the tenant paid the electricity and water. The landlord asked the tenant to leave the premises (the tenant was inside the landlord’s flat) repeatedly. The tenant responded that she wanted the landlord to stop using her water and electricity.
The tenant then claims that she turned off the rug doctor at the wall. The tenant claims that the landlord hit her with a mop handle on her wrist as the tenant turned the rug doctor off.
Both parties made complaints to the Police. The Police investigated and did not lay any charges against either party.
Having considered all the evidence put forward by both parties I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant was assaulted by the landlord, I say this for the following reasons: a. The landlord had a video of the interaction between her and the tenant on that day. Whilst the video does not record the whole interaction (because the landlord says she had to use her phone to call the Police) it does not show any assault and it largely accords with the landlord’s version of events rather than the tenant’s version regarding placement of the switches and how far into the premises the tenant had come. b. The Police reports show that the Police could find no corroborating evidence of an assault. There was no bruising or other injury to the tenant. c. The landlord’s brother in law was present during this interaction. He did not give evidence to me, but he did speak to the Police, and he supported the landlord’s version of events.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord assaulted her is not proven and is dismissed. Was the tenant’s claim vexatious or an abuse of process?
The landlord has asked the Tribunal to consider that this claim by the landlord a vexatious and unmeritorious complaint, that was an abuse of Tribunal proceedings. Such cases have a very high threshold, which I do not consider to have been met here for the following reasons: a. Whilst the claim of assault was dismissed that simply means that the tenant has not proven their claim. The converse is not always true that if an allegation is not proven it must be false. b. There was no video of the whole interaction. c. The Police have not charged the tenant with making a false complaint. Observations
These parties have been embroiled in tenancy disputes since last year with one another, they have used up considerable time and resource of the Tribunal. Whilst there have been many claims to be determined and there were instances where because of procedural difficulties claims could not be heard. The tenancy ended almost a year ago. All matters have been determined. Name suppression
I have decided to grant the parties suppression. I have done this because I consider it is in the public interest to have this matter resolved. I am concerned that if the names are published and this decision is in the media, then that will simply add fuel to the fire and will cause further distress to both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4914997 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4914997 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord assault the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord assault the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions