What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5021189 about?

The tribunal order states: Andrea Dawson is to pay Aliesha Vieda Jayne Grant $1,3500.00 compensation

How much money was awarded in case 5021189?

Compensation: $1,350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5021189?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5021189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11862807-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5021189 about?

The tribunal order states: Andrea Dawson is to pay Aliesha Vieda Jayne Grant $1,3500.00 compensation

How much money was awarded in case 5021189?

Compensation: $1,350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5021189?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5021189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11862807-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

58 George Harvey Road, Upper Moutere, RD 1, Upper Tenancy Tribunal Case 5021189 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5021189. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
compensation for non-exclusive electricity costs paid. This amount is paid via a reduction of	$1,350.00		compensation for non-exclusive electricity costs paid. This amount is paid via a reduction of

Andrea Dawson is to pay Aliesha Vieda Jayne Grant $1,3500.00 compensation for non-exclusive electricity costs paid. This amount is paid via a reduction of $1,350.00 from the total due to the landlord from the tenant debt ordered in NZTT 4878904, 4927033, dated 22 September 2024.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference.

A telephone case conference was previously convened on Tuesday, 4 February 2025. Both parties were present.

This application cross-referenced a prior landlord application, TT4878904. That application is closed (as is tenant application TT4927033, heard with 4878904). That order resulted in Aliesha Grant being ordered to pay Andrea Dawson $9,735.71 immediately.

This tenant application is to consider fresh claims but some claims have already been determined. As advised during the case conference call, previous claims heard and determined cannot be revisited via this application. The principle of res judicata applies and that is that when a final judicial decision has been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction such as this Tribunal the parties are prevented from disputing or questioning that decision in any subsequent litigation. Shiels v Blakely [1986] NZLR 262 CA.

If either party had disagreed with the previous decision, it would have been open to them to appeal or apply for a rehearing.

Given the above, the three claims of the tenant in this application were confirmed as seeking compensation for: a. Use of electricity by the landlord or others of electricity paid for by the tenant. Refer s 39 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). b. Interference with the tenant right to privacy. Refer s 38 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). c. Possessions left at the end of the tenancy. Refer s 62 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Electricity outgoings

A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or to their use of the facilities (see s 39(3) RTA). Therefore, tenants are only liable for the electricity, gas, telephone and internet they use, and for water charges based on consumption (s 39(4) RTA).

Where utilities are shared between more than one dwelling or building, the landlord will not be able calculate a tenant’s share of outgoings without a separate check meter. A tenant is therefore not liable to pay for electricity charges on a meter shared with other premises (Green v McGregor [2015] NZTT Waitakere 1292). Even if the tenant’s electricity usage can be calculated, a strict application of s 39(3) RTA means they will not be liable for fixed line charges, as they are not exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises.

Section 11(1) RTA provides that any agreement or arrangement that is inconsistent with any provision of the Act is of no effect. However, the District Court has held that section 85 RTA should be considered when deciding whether to strictly apply s 39(3) and order a full refund of utilities paid by the tenant (Geraghty and Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813). In that case, the District Court directed a rehearing of the original order to refund $6,432.48. At the rehearing the tenant confirmed she was not seeking a full refund of her electricity payments, and the Tribunal found that a strict application of s 39(3) would produce an unfair and unjust result.

I heard from the landlord that she wanted the electricity account in the tenant name as previously she had incurred losses when she held the account and sought tenant contributions that were not paid. There is some irony that the landlord had not paid the tenant for an extended period of time.

No appropriate check meter measurement or reading process existed between the two premises.

The tenant claims the bulk of her electricity was used during off-shoulder discount periods but that does not appear consistent with the invoices supplied where typical usage during that period was approximately 20% of the total. That aside, the inability for the tenant to have visibility and control over the total, exclusive consumption is another reason separate metering or measurement is required.

I consider that in this instance it is inappropriate to order a full refund of electricity paid as the tenant had clearly consumed electricity during this period. I do however consider some refund is in order, this is based on last five months of non-payment of the prior $110.00 per month (totalling $550.00) as well as disputes regarding any cash payments.

Having considered the likely occupancy and electricity consumption between the two premises during the tenancy I consider the monthly allocation to be reasonable on a consumption basis. I have also considered the long duration of that agreement operating without evidence of historic dispute regarding it.

There remains an issue regarding the daily fixed charge. There was no accounting for that and while the landlord stated it was included in the $100 (later $110) paid monthly to the tenant I see no evidence of such consideration.

The tenancy period before final eviction was of approximately 128 weeks (896 days). The daily fixed charge shown in the later invoices was 90 cent/day. This will have likely increased since commencement.

I have awarded a rebate of the electricity costs incurred by the tenant on behalf of the landlord of $1,350.00, calculated as $550.00 owing and not paid to the tenant by the landlord and $800.00 for fixed line costs (see [10] above) paid by the tenant. The full rebate of $204.91 from Network Tasman remains with the tenant.

Did the landlord interfere with the tenant right to privacy?

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00 (see s 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA).

The premises of the tenant and landlord were located at the same rural address. There was a lack of any clear demarcation of boundaries. Limited photos and competing submissions have hindered the tenant claims here. Having considered the instances cited by the tenant as times she believes the landlord interfered with her s 38 rights. I do not consider any such claimed events, and not already considered by previous orders, have been sufficiently evidenced by the tenant to justify any specific orders here.

The claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to deal appropriately with goods left at the end of the tenancy?

The return of possession to the landlord required enforcement. After that took place, the landlord secured the premises. The tenant returned the next day and found access was not possible.

The tenant claimed the landlord had stated in an email that she was withholding the goods and would use them to offset the large rent arrears. However, upon locating the email and reading it out during the hearing the tenant accepted the landlord had not stated that and had actually advised a timeline and process for the uplift of any remaining goods. This was not acted upon by the tenant.

Section 62 (2) RTA requires the landlord must, immediately after taking possession of the premises, make all reasonable efforts to contact the tenant and to agree with the tenant on a period within which the tenant is to collect the goods. Further, sub-section (3) provides that if the landlord is unable to contact the tenant or to agree on a period with the tenant, or if the tenant fails to collect the goods within the agreed period, the landlord may deal with the goods in accordance with section 62A.

I am satisfied the landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with s 62A.

The claim is dismissed. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

The tenant requested suppression in its application. As it has not been wholly successful, suppression is not ordered.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5021189. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
compensation for non-exclusive electricity costs paid. This amount is paid via a reduction of	$1,350.00		compensation for non-exclusive electricity costs paid. This amount is paid via a reduction of

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference.

A telephone case conference was previously convened on Tuesday, 4 February 2025. Both parties were present.

If either party had disagreed with the previous decision, it would have been open to them to appeal or apply for a rehearing.

No appropriate check meter measurement or reading process existed between the two premises.

Did the landlord interfere with the tenant right to privacy?

The claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to deal appropriately with goods left at the end of the tenancy?

The return of possession to the landlord required enforcement. After that took place, the landlord secured the premises. The tenant returned the next day and found access was not possible.

I am satisfied the landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with s 62A.

The claim is dismissed. Suppression

The tenant requested suppression in its application. As it has not been wholly successful, suppression is not ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5021189 — Rent arrears at 58 George Harvey Road, Upper Moutere, RD 1, Upper

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5021189 — Rent arrears at 58 George Harvey Road, Upper Moutere, RD 1, Upper

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord interfere with the tenant right to privacy?

Did the landlord fail to deal appropriately with goods left at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord interfere with the tenant right to privacy?

Did the landlord fail to deal appropriately with goods left at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions