What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5083991 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 5083991?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5083991?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5083991?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12109536-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5083991 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 5083991?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5083991?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5083991?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12109536-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5083991 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
The Tenants application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant has applied for compensation in the total amount of $6,000.00. This is made up of $3,500.00 for reimbursement of electricity charges and $2,500.00 for stress and emotional distress suffered as a result of being overcharged.
The tenancy began on 14 February 2021 and ended on 21 October 2024. The Tenant had a separate metre installed by the Landlord to measure their consumption. Tenant’s claim for compensation
The Tenant submitted that they were overcharged electricity during the tenancy. They submitted that the electricity bills would amount to approximately $300.00 at times and they would be charged $150.00 however there were several people living at the property. The Landlord then obtained solar panels and the Tenant was charged additionally for this.
The Tenant provided a summary of the amounts paid in electricity over the tenancy and claimed it was excessive. On one occasion, they left the property for one month and took a photograph of the metre reading. When the Tenant returned, it had increased one unit. He also worked six days a week in the evening so this was inaccurate.
The Landlord submitted that separate electricity meters were installed for each tenant at the property and that the charges incurred were solely attributable to the Tenant. It was further submitted that the Tenant resided at the property with a second individual, namely his wife. The Landlord asserted that, unlike the other tenants who utilised gas appliances, the Tenant relied exclusively on electricity, and the charges reflected his actual consumption.
The Landlord submitted that the Tenant's electricity usage would have been impacted by the operation of electrical appliances such as the cooktop, oven, and hot water pumps. In response to the Tenant’s claim that there was consumption while he was away, the Landlord suggested that a minimal increase — for instance, one unit — could reasonably be attributed to background power consumption, such as digital clocks or other standby devices, and noted that electricity meters are highly sensitive.
The Landlord further submitted that subsequent tenants at the property have not reported any concerns regarding electricity charges and have averaged approximately 140 units of electricity per month, in stark contrast to the Tenant’s average consumption of approximately 600 units. The Landlord maintained that the elevated consumption was the result of the Tenant’s own usage. It was also noted that the Landlord would photograph the Tenant’s electricity meter each month and calculate the consumption based on those readings.
The Tenant submitted that they experienced significant stress and emotional distress, which they claim resulted in the onset of alopecia. However, the Tenant was unable to provide any supporting medical evidence to substantiate this claim. The Tenant further stated that they were unable to relocate to alternative accommodation due to restrictions in place during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that their ability to socialise was also adversely affected by the stress they were experiencing. The law
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). They are not liable for fixed water charges.
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 water meter or 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.
In relation to water charges, the District Court held in Woollams v Simpson (DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1583, 16 March 2006), that there was an implied term in the tenancy agreement that the landlord would provide water accounts at regular intervals, and within a reasonable time, to enable payment to be made. The Court determined that, because the landlord had failed to do so, the tenant was only required to pay the last two accounts, which covered a period of just over four months.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Tenant has failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that their electricity consumption was inaccurately calculated. While the Tenant asserted that the charges were excessive, no independent evidence was provided from the electricity provider regarding the average consumption for a single occupant. There was also no documentation from the Tenant’s employer to corroborate being absent from the premises nor was there any evidence indicating that the Tenant's usage was abnormally low.
Although the Tenant submitted electricity bills reflecting the monthly charges incurred, there was no evidence to state how many individuals were residing at the premises during each billing period. Additionally, no evidence was submitted from the electricity provider to suggest that there was a fault with the meter or with the manner in which consumption was recorded. The Tenant occupied the premises for a period of approximately three years, which provided ample opportunity to raise concerns or request an investigation into any suspected issues with the electricity metering. There was also no medical evidence to substantiate the Tenants claims for stress from the overcharging.
For these reasons, the Tenants claim is dismissed.
As the Tenant has not been successful, name suppression is declined. As The Landlord has been successful, name suppression is granted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The Tenant has applied for compensation in the total amount of $6,000.00. This is made up of $3,500.00 for reimbursement of electricity charges and $2,500.00 for stress and emotional distress suffered as a result of being overcharged.

The tenancy began on 14 February 2021 and ended on 21 October 2024. The Tenant had a separate metre installed by the Landlord to measure their consumption. Tenant’s claim for compensation

The Tenant submitted that they were overcharged electricity during the tenancy. They submitted that the electricity bills would amount to approximately $300.00 at times and they would be charged $150.00 however there were several people living at the property. The Landlord then obtained solar panels and the Tenant was charged additionally for this.

The Tenant provided a summary of the amounts paid in electricity over the tenancy and claimed it was excessive. On one occasion, they left the property for one month and took a photograph of the metre reading. When the Tenant returned, it had increased one unit. He also worked six days a week in the evening so this was inaccurate.

The Landlord submitted that separate electricity meters were installed for each tenant at the property and that the charges incurred were solely attributable to the Tenant. It was further submitted that the Tenant resided at the property with a second individual, namely his wife. The Landlord asserted that, unlike the other tenants who utilised gas appliances, the Tenant relied exclusively on electricity, and the charges reflected his actual consumption.

The Landlord submitted that the Tenant's electricity usage would have been impacted by the operation of electrical appliances such as the cooktop, oven, and hot water pumps. In response to the Tenant’s claim that there was consumption while he was away, the Landlord suggested that a minimal increase — for instance, one unit — could reasonably be attributed to background power consumption, such as digital clocks or other standby devices, and noted that electricity meters are highly sensitive.

The Landlord further submitted that subsequent tenants at the property have not reported any concerns regarding electricity charges and have averaged approximately 140 units of electricity per month, in stark contrast to the Tenant’s average consumption of approximately 600 units. The Landlord maintained that the elevated consumption was the result of the Tenant’s own usage. It was also noted that the Landlord would photograph the Tenant’s electricity meter each month and calculate the consumption based on those readings.

The Tenant submitted that they experienced significant stress and emotional distress, which they claim resulted in the onset of alopecia. However, the Tenant was unable to provide any supporting medical evidence to substantiate this claim. The Tenant further stated that they were unable to relocate to alternative accommodation due to restrictions in place during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that their ability to socialise was also adversely affected by the stress they were experiencing. The law

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). They are not liable for fixed water charges.

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 water meter or 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.

In relation to water charges, the District Court held in Woollams v Simpson (DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1583, 16 March 2006), that there was an implied term in the tenancy agreement that the landlord would provide water accounts at regular intervals, and within a reasonable time, to enable payment to be made. The Court determined that, because the landlord had failed to do so, the tenant was only required to pay the last two accounts, which covered a period of just over four months.

In considering the evidence, I find that the Tenant has failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that their electricity consumption was inaccurately calculated. While the Tenant asserted that the charges were excessive, no independent evidence was provided from the electricity provider regarding the average consumption for a single occupant. There was also no documentation from the Tenant’s employer to corroborate being absent from the premises nor was there any evidence indicating that the Tenant's usage was abnormally low.

Although the Tenant submitted electricity bills reflecting the monthly charges incurred, there was no evidence to state how many individuals were residing at the premises during each billing period. Additionally, no evidence was submitted from the electricity provider to suggest that there was a fault with the meter or with the manner in which consumption was recorded. The Tenant occupied the premises for a period of approximately three years, which provided ample opportunity to raise concerns or request an investigation into any suspected issues with the electricity metering. There was also no medical evidence to substantiate the Tenants claims for stress from the overcharging.

For these reasons, the Tenants claim is dismissed.

As the Tenant has not been successful, name suppression is declined. As The Landlord has been successful, name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5083991 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5083991 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions