What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146589 about?

The tribunal order states: that the

How much money was awarded in case 5146589?

Order That The Tenants Are To Pay: $790.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146589?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12100190-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146589 about?

The tribunal order states: that the

How much money was awarded in case 5146589?

Order That The Tenants Are To Pay: $790.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146589?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12100190-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

876C Dominion Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5146589 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146589 — net $2,578.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
order that the Tenants are to pay	$790.25	order that the Tenants are to pay
Net award	$2,578.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,578.36

Order

that the Tenants are to pay $790.25 to the Landlords.

The Tenants’ claim Excess water charges

For the

Reasons

set out about, I find that the Tenants have not proven that they were charged excessive water rates. This aspect of their claim is dismissed. Electrical faults

The Tenants allege that they experienced issues with faulty electrical wiring throughout their tenancy. They say that lights would regularly fail, that the electrical switchboard would trip and that electrical fault codes would appear on the display of the induction cooktop before it was replaced in June 2024. They say that the electrician who came to the house to replace lights told them that there were problems with the electrical wiring in the house. The Tenants provided no evidence from any suitably qualified person as to any electrical faults within the premises.
The Landlord denies that there is any fault with the electrical wiring. It says that lights were replaced by Alert Electrical as and when the bulbs failed, which is normal. It says that it then replaced all the downlights in the house on the advice of Alert Electrical, given the frequency with which the old lights were failing. The Landlord says that the electrical issues with the induction cooktop, which caused the switchboard to trip, were caused by water getting into the wiring because the Tenants were allowing water to boil over onto the cooktop.
The Landlord also provided a letter from Peter Robson of Alert Electrical dated 14 April 2025, in which Mr Robson has that he assessed the electrical wiring in the premises in February or March 2024 when he replaced lights. Mr Robson says he found it to be “all of a good standard”. Mr Robson says that the also assessed the wiring again in June 2024 when he replaced the induction cooktop. He says that he “again found all the electrics to be in good order”.
I find that the Tenants have not proven that there was any underlying or general electrical fault within the premises. Lights required replacement from time to time, and then the induction cooktop failed, causing temporary issues, but there is no credible evidence to demonstrate any wider problem, or any safety risk. Compensation for electricity charges
The premises did not have a rangehood or exhaust fan in the kitchen. The Tenants say that they had to open windows during and after cooking. As a result, the Tenants say that the house was “always cold and humid”, and they had to use additional heating and air conditioning. They seek to recover $1,600, which they say were the additional electricity charges they incurred over the term of their tenancy due to the absence of the rangehood or exhaust fan.
This claim must fail. The premises complied with healthy homes requirements and there is no evidence to suggest that the Tenants were told that the premises had a rangehood or other ventilation in the kitchen. The Landlord has not therefore breached any of its obligations under the RTA, so the Tenants have no entitlement to compensation. Compensation for being unable to use cooktop
The induction cooktop failed and was replaced in June 2024. The Tenants say that they cooked all their meals on the cooktop, so they were unable to prepare food at home while the cooktop was being replaced. They say it took 16 days to replace the cooktop, during which they spent $80 per day on purchasing meals that they would otherwise have prepared at home. They therefore seek $1,280 compensation.
I see no grounds for this claim. I have no doubt that the Tenants suffered some inconvenience due to the absence of a cooktop, but other than their oral evidence during the hearing, the Tenants provided no evidence as to the extra costs they incurred.
Even if those costs were incurred, I question whether the costs claimed would have been reasonable. The Tenants had access to other means of cooking. There was an oven and a microwave oven on the premises. Likewise, they could also have asked the Landlord to provide a temporary cooktop, such as the kind that can be purchased from hardware stores. Compensation for black mould
The Tenants seek $3,350.20 as compensation for costs they claim to have incurred in clearing black mould from the bathroom and windows. They say they spent one hour a week cleaning black mould and used one bottle of mould spray every two weeks.
This claim has two fatal flaws: a. The Tenants have not proven that the premises had significant black mould justifying such extensive cleaning. Some photographs show a small amount of what appears to be mould, but not nearly enough to justify cleaning to the extent claimed. b. The Tenants have not proven that they incurred any of the costs claimed. For example, there was evidence provided to show that they purchased dozens of bottles of mould spray.
This claim is also dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
Because it has largely succeeded in its claim, the Landlord is entitled to recover the filing fee of $27 from the Tenant. I order accordingly.
I order name suppression for the Tenants. Although there are no grounds for name suppression arising from this application, the Tenants’ names were suppressed in the earlier Tribunal decision, and publishing their names here would compromise those orders. The Landlord would have been entitled to suppression because it has largely succeeded in its claim, but advised the Tribunal in its application form that it did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146589 — net $2,578.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
order that the Tenants are to pay	$790.25	order that the Tenants are to pay
Net award	$2,578.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,578.36

Order

that the Tenants are to pay $790.25 to the Landlords.

The Tenants’ claim Excess water charges

For the

Reasons

set out about, I find that the Tenants have not proven that they were charged excessive water rates. This aspect of their claim is dismissed. Electrical faults

The Tenants allege that they experienced issues with faulty electrical wiring throughout their tenancy. They say that lights would regularly fail, that the electrical switchboard would trip and that electrical fault codes would appear on the display of the induction cooktop before it was replaced in June 2024. They say that the electrician who came to the house to replace lights told them that there were problems with the electrical wiring in the house. The Tenants provided no evidence from any suitably qualified person as to any electrical faults within the premises.
The Landlord denies that there is any fault with the electrical wiring. It says that lights were replaced by Alert Electrical as and when the bulbs failed, which is normal. It says that it then replaced all the downlights in the house on the advice of Alert Electrical, given the frequency with which the old lights were failing. The Landlord says that the electrical issues with the induction cooktop, which caused the switchboard to trip, were caused by water getting into the wiring because the Tenants were allowing water to boil over onto the cooktop.
The Landlord also provided a letter from Peter Robson of Alert Electrical dated 14 April 2025, in which Mr Robson has that he assessed the electrical wiring in the premises in February or March 2024 when he replaced lights. Mr Robson says he found it to be “all of a good standard”. Mr Robson says that the also assessed the wiring again in June 2024 when he replaced the induction cooktop. He says that he “again found all the electrics to be in good order”.
I find that the Tenants have not proven that there was any underlying or general electrical fault within the premises. Lights required replacement from time to time, and then the induction cooktop failed, causing temporary issues, but there is no credible evidence to demonstrate any wider problem, or any safety risk. Compensation for electricity charges
The premises did not have a rangehood or exhaust fan in the kitchen. The Tenants say that they had to open windows during and after cooking. As a result, the Tenants say that the house was “always cold and humid”, and they had to use additional heating and air conditioning. They seek to recover $1,600, which they say were the additional electricity charges they incurred over the term of their tenancy due to the absence of the rangehood or exhaust fan.
This claim must fail. The premises complied with healthy homes requirements and there is no evidence to suggest that the Tenants were told that the premises had a rangehood or other ventilation in the kitchen. The Landlord has not therefore breached any of its obligations under the RTA, so the Tenants have no entitlement to compensation. Compensation for being unable to use cooktop
The induction cooktop failed and was replaced in June 2024. The Tenants say that they cooked all their meals on the cooktop, so they were unable to prepare food at home while the cooktop was being replaced. They say it took 16 days to replace the cooktop, during which they spent $80 per day on purchasing meals that they would otherwise have prepared at home. They therefore seek $1,280 compensation.
I see no grounds for this claim. I have no doubt that the Tenants suffered some inconvenience due to the absence of a cooktop, but other than their oral evidence during the hearing, the Tenants provided no evidence as to the extra costs they incurred.
Even if those costs were incurred, I question whether the costs claimed would have been reasonable. The Tenants had access to other means of cooking. There was an oven and a microwave oven on the premises. Likewise, they could also have asked the Landlord to provide a temporary cooktop, such as the kind that can be purchased from hardware stores. Compensation for black mould
The Tenants seek $3,350.20 as compensation for costs they claim to have incurred in clearing black mould from the bathroom and windows. They say they spent one hour a week cleaning black mould and used one bottle of mould spray every two weeks.
This claim has two fatal flaws: a. The Tenants have not proven that the premises had significant black mould justifying such extensive cleaning. Some photographs show a small amount of what appears to be mould, but not nearly enough to justify cleaning to the extent claimed. b. The Tenants have not proven that they incurred any of the costs claimed. For example, there was evidence provided to show that they purchased dozens of bottles of mould spray.
This claim is also dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
Because it has largely succeeded in its claim, the Landlord is entitled to recover the filing fee of $27 from the Tenant. I order accordingly.
I order name suppression for the Tenants. Although there are no grounds for name suppression arising from this application, the Tenants’ names were suppressed in the earlier Tribunal decision, and publishing their names here would compromise those orders. The Landlord would have been entitled to suppression because it has largely succeeded in its claim, but advised the Tribunal in its application form that it did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146589 — Tenancy dispute at 876C Dominion Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146589 — Tenancy dispute at 876C Dominion Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1041

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