What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5151312 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 5151312?

Compensation: Refund Of Gas Charges: $292.51 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Refund of water charge…: $340.70 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5151312?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5151312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11698587-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5151312 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 5151312?

Compensation: Refund Of Gas Charges: $292.51 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Refund of water charge…: $340.70 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5151312?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5151312?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11698587-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

9 Keating Rise, Northcross, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5151312 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5151312 — net $660.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Refund of water charges	$340.70	Refund of water charges
Compensation: Refund of gas charges	$292.51	Refund of gas charges
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$660.21
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$660.21

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5151312 — net $660.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Refund of water charges	$340.70	Refund of water charges
Compensation: Refund of gas charges	$292.51	Refund of gas charges
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$660.21
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$660.21

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Masoud Sedehi must pay the tenant $660.21, being compensation for utility charges and the filing fee, immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has filed several claims against her former landlord, namely a. Return of her bond b. Refund of utility charges c. A work order for the stove top and HRV system d. Breach of landlord obligations in respect of the Healthy Homes ventilation requirement e. Failure to maintain.
Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.
I acknowledge the evidence filed by the tenant as part of her application. I also acknowledge the considerable evidence provided by the landlord during the hearing.
The premises consist of a ‘granny flat’ attached to the main house with a separate entrance. There are two bedrooms and one bathroom. The landlord resides in the main house and rents out the granny flat. The tenant resided there with her son.
The tenancy started on or about 13 February 2024 and ended on 12 February 2025. The agreement was fixed for a period of 12 months. Bond:
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.
Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Utility charges – water
The tenant is claiming an over payment of utility bills of $750.78. The tenant says that the amounts charged by the landlord are not exclusively attributable to her granny flat.
The landlord says that he divides the water account up based on the number of people living in the granny flat.
Under section 38(3) and (4) of the RTA, a 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 facilities, including for the supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.
Water is supplied to the premises by Watercare and is charged on the basis of consumption. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that he receives the invoice of water charges and divides the amount payable by the tenant based on the ‘headcount’ of the people residing in the granny flat.
I am satisfied that the water charges, as levied by the landlord, are not exclusively attributable to the tenant. The tenant is not liable for these charges. Instead the landlord needed to include this in the rent payable. The tenant has provided a schedule of the amounts paid for water from the start of the tenancy which I have sighted.
I find the tenant’s claim for water reimbursement proven. Utility charges – gas
The tenant seeks reimbursement of gas charges paid since the start of the tenancy. The tenant says that there is no separate gas meter for her granny flat.
The gas supplied to the address of 9 Keating Rise, Northcross, Auckland by the gas company/supplier is through one common gas meter. A separate check meter for gas supply has not been installed.
Section 39 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) provides: (1) The landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that— a. are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied; and b. are incurred for common facilities. (2)... (3) 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 facilities.
Pursuant to section 39 RTA, the landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are not exclusively to the tenant’s use or occupation of the premises. The landlord says that the gas charges were also divided up based on the headcount of the granny flat household.
Given that it was not possible to calculate from the previous and current gas bills the gas outgoings that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities, the tenant is not liable to pay the gas charges.
I therefore order the reimbursement of the gas charges incurred from the start to the end of the tenancy. Utility charges – power
The tenant claims reimbursement of power charges paid since the start of the tenancy.
The landlord says that when the invoice arrives from Contact Energy he reads the meter for the granny flat and then charges the tenant based on this reading.
The tenant says that the meter was not in the granny flat but rather in the main part of the house (garage).
Having sighted evidence of this separate power meter I am satisfied that the amount charged for power is exclusively attributable to the tenant’s use.
The claim for reimbursement of power charges is dismissed. Failure to maintain – Stovetop, HRV system and kitchen sink leak
The tenant says that the HRV ventilation system was not working at all doing the tenancy. She advised the landlord several times that the unit was not working. She states that the control panel indicated that there was a filter issue.
The tenant stated that the landlord attended but did not doing anything to fix the issue.
The landlord says that it was only one time that he was asked to look at the HRV system. The landlord then cleaned the filter. The tenant says that even after the filter weas cleaned by the landlord the filter light remained on. The landlord says that after the filter was cleaned the filter light was not showing.
The tenant says that the induction cook top was not working properly. The tenant says it was making a buzzing sound and the element was going on and off all the time.
The landlord says that the tenant was unaware of how to operate an induction cooktop properly. The landlord says that the video provided confirms that the element was working properly. The landlord says that the new tenant is using the cooktop and that there is no issue.
Other than a photograph of the HRV control panel there is no other evidence to confirm whether the unit was in fact not working. I also do not have evidence from an independent party, such as a Healthy Homes assessor, that the unit was not operating as required. I am also satisfied that the landlord responded to requests for repairs and maintenance in respect of these items.
The tenant has also failed to provide any evidence confirming whether there was a fault with the stovetop. From the minimal evidence provided I cannot be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the stovetop was not working properly. I also note that the tenancy has now ended which makes a work order somewhat of a moot point.
The tenant also claims that there was a leak under the kitchen sink. The tenant notified the landlord without delay that there was a leak on or about early August 2024. The tenant says that the landlord fixed the leak. I have sighted the tenant’s photographic evidence of water damage to the kitchen cabinet.
There were no entry inspection photographs provided with the application. There is also no evidence provided which confirms that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises. The premises are modern and generally in good condition.
The leak had damaged the wooden cabinetry. The landlord says that it was one of the valves which was leaking. The landlord said that there were no further issues once the valve had been changed.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant alleges that the landlord failed to maintain these items.
There was no 14-day notice, and the tenant has not provided any corroborating evidence confirming the landlord was put on formal written notice that maintenance was required.
In relation to the mould, the tenant says that the house is not compliant with the HHS and it damp and mouldy as a result. The landlord’s position is that the house is dry and healthy, but any mould is due to the tenant failing to look after the premises.
Having carefully considered the evidence provided by the tenant I find there is insufficient evidence to show that there were issues with the premises that the landlord had to failed to respond to.
In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the landlord has committed an unlawful act or breached their obligations.
Accordingly, the claims in respect of the stovetop, HRV system and sink leak must be dismissed. Healthy Homes
The tenant says that there was mould on the windowsill of all windows during her tenancy. There was also mould under the kitchen sink.
The landlord says that there is always mould if a tenant does not keep the premises clean. The landlord stated that it is about how a house is cared for. There was no evidence provided in support of this allegation.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The standards set out minimum expectations for Healthy Home compliance.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case I have determined that, for want of evidence, I cannot be certain that there has been a breach of the Healthy Home Standards. Because this is a tenant application the obligation rests on her to provide adequate evidence in support of this claim. At the very least I would have expected a Healthy Homes assessment report confirming non-compliance with the requirements.
Whilst I suspect the premises do not entirely comply with the HHS requirements, in the absence of evidence I am not prepared to allow the claim.
The claim for a breach of HHS is therefore dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details. She has partly succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5151312 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Keating Rise, Northcross, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5151312 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Keating Rise, Northcross, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions