What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5200652 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 5200652?

Reimburse Electricity: $32.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5200652?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5200652?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11793088-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5200652 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 5200652?

Reimburse Electricity: $32.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5200652?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5200652?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11793088-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5200652 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5200652 — net $32.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimburse electricity	$32.00	Reimburse electricity
Net award	$32.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$32.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5200652 — net $32.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimburse electricity	$32.00	Reimburse electricity
Net award	$32.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$32.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application to reduce the fixed term is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 to the tenant.
Staircase Property Management Limited as Agent for Craig and Becky's Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $32.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties appeared. The hearing was conducted by video link.
The tenancy is fixed term commencing on 14 February 2025 to end on 18 February 2026. On 17 March 2025, the tenant filed a claim seeking to reduce the fixed term, refund of the bond, and that the landlord had failed to meet the relevant regulations concerning ventilation. The tenant also challenges electricity charges levied for a heat pump / air conditioning unit, and a break lease fee.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the tenant. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. Reducing fixed term / electricity
The property is an east facing, one bedroom apartment located on the sixth floor. Due to its orientation, the apartment is most exposed to the heat of the sun in the morning.
The tenant’s application to reduce the fixed term is based on the internal temperature of the unit, which they state was unexpectedly and extremely high.
The tenant states that they viewed the property on the afternoon of 14 February 2025. During the inspection, they did not detect any potential issues with temperature.
There are opening windows in the bedroom and main living / dining / kitchen area. There are blackout curtains and a heat pump / air conditioning unit. The unit is located in the main living room and indirectly services the bedroom.
The building is managed by a Body Corporate, who maintains the building and utilities. However, the landlord remains liable to the tenant under the agreement and provisions of the Act.
The tenant states that within a few days of moving in, they experienced consistently very high internal temperatures. They have produced heat readings taken at 11.30am, on 15 March 2025, showing an internal temperature of 43.6 degrees celsius) “C), at 8.51am on 16 March 2025 of 38.5 C, and 11.30am on 25 March 2025 of 43.6 C.
On each occasion, the tenant states that the living room window was open, and on 16 March 2025, the air conditioning had also been running.
The tenant states that the windows alone are insufficient to provide adequate ventilation, as they do not open wide enough to allow sufficient draft, and that they had not been advised of the costs of operating the air conditioning, which needed to be run constantly to maintain the property at a liveable temperature.
The tenant states that shortly after the commencement of the tenancy, a contractor arranged by the Body Corporate visited to repair a window latch in the bedroom. The tenant stated the contractor questioned how the tenant could bare living in the apartment, referring to the heat, and suggested that other tenants had not coped with the heat, and those on the other side fared better.
The tenant states that the temperature was negatively impacting their sleep, resulting in an overall deterioration of their mental and physical health. One of the tenants is diabetic and stated that it was not safe to store medication inside the apartment, and that they their medication had to be left in the car. Furthermore, pot plants could not survive more than a day, and fruit and other food items quickly perished if not refrigerated.
The tenant stated that the heat had caused the battery in their laptop to expand, damaging the laptop beyond repair. However, no claim has been made.
The tenant stated that they raised concerns with the landlord in early in early March 2025, stating that the situation was intolerable. The tenant states that in order to determine if the air conditioning unit was being utilised effectively, they asked for an operating manual but, due to a misunderstanding had not received one.
The tenant states that on 13 March 2025, they had received an invoice from the landlord provided by the Body Corporate, for the power usage by the heat pump for the period 14 February 2025 to 28 February 2025 for $43.71, and 01 March 2025 to 31 March 2025 for $52.34.
The tenant states that they had not been advised that the heat pump / air conditioning unit was separate from their own electricity arrangement with a provider.
Despite the usage being disputed, both invoices have been paid.
The tenant disputes the electricity charges and seeks a reimbursement of the amounts paid, stating that there was insufficient evidence to support the calculation of the charges or to prove that the usage claimed was exclusively attributable to themselves.
Around 14 March 2025, the tenant made a request to end the fixed term. The landlord agreed, advising that the tenant would be liable for rent until a new tenant was found, and any reasonable costs associated with re letting the property.
The tenant states the landlord entered into a new tenancy commencing 11 April 2025. The tenant remained in the property up until 10 April 2025, and that the rent has been paid up to that date.
The tenant is seeking that the fixed term be reduced and that the tenancy end on 25 March 2025, with a rent refund until 10 April 2025.
The tenant states they have paid advertising costs of $170.00, believed these to be reasonable, and oppose any other costs claimed by the landlord. Landlord
The landlord refers to a term in the agreement whereby the parties may agree to end the fixed term, under conditions that the tenant remains liable for rent until a new tenancy is entered into, and for reasonable costs associated with reletting.
The landlord states that a new tenant viewed the property on 24 March 2025 and, on 25 March 2025 entered into an agreement commencing 11 April 2025.
The landlord states they are not pursuing any additional costs over and above the advertising costs already paid. No claims have been made against the bond.
The landlord states that, at the commencement of the tenancy, they had explained that the tenant was free to enter into an arrangement with an electricity provider of their choice, but that the supply to the heat pump / air - conditioning unit, which is based on usage only, was controlled by the Body Corporate and invoiced separately.
The landlord has produced spreadsheets provided by the Body Corporate which they claim set out how the charges are calculated. The landlord states that the tenant’s usage is similar to that of the previous tenant, who had occupied the unit for approximately 13 months without raising any concerns about the internal heat or the cost of running the air conditioning.
The landlord has produced their own temperature readings taken in the living room at 3pm on 01 April 2025 with the curtains closed and then open. The temperatures, 26.4 and 28.3 degrees celsius are high, but not as high as those recorded by the tenant.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes Standards report showing that the unit complies with the applicable ventilation requirements.
The landlord stated they had received no other complaints from other occupants and, while showing the prospective tenants the property on 24 March 2025 at around 3pm, did not experience the property as excessively hot. The landlord denied that the windows did not open wide enough and suggested that the tenants had not been using them properly. The landlord stated that an operating manual for the heatpump had been provided at the commencement of the tenancy. Law
A fixed term tenancy may not be terminated by either party simply giving notice. The parties may agree to end a fixed term on reasonable terms, which often include liability for rent until a new tenancy is entered, as well as a break lease fee covering advertising and other reasonable costs associated with re letting the property. If the parties cannot reach an agreement to end the tenancy, they remain bound by the terms of the original agreement.
The usual legal position with a fixed-term tenancy is that the term will be strictly enforced, and only in limited circumstances will the court or tribunal interfere.
Section 66(1) of the Act allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements. 66 Reduction of fixed-term tenancy (1) On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant's circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.
Section 39(3) of the Act, states that tenants are responsible “for all outgoings that in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises”.
In Geraghty v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813, the District Court held that in considering whether to require the tenant to pay for outgoings when there is no means for calculating the tenant’s actual consumption the Tenancy Tribunal must have regard to section 85 RTA.
Section 85(2) of the Act states: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give strict effect to legal rights or obligations or legal forms or technicalities. Decision
The tenancy agreement contains a standard term that the tenant is responsible for all outgoings that can be exclusively attributed to them. There is no mention that the air conditioning unit remains under the Body Corporate’s control. This may or may not have been orally explained at the commencement of the tenancy. However, the term contained in the agreement is consistent with section 39 of the Act. In this case, there is a means of calculating the tenant’s electricity usage, but the tenant disputes the accuracy of the method used.
The tenant has cast doubt on the accuracy of the calculation. On the evidence, I accept the tenant’s submission that the method of calculation is unclear. Nonetheless, there is no dispute that the tenant has used the air conditioning unit and are therefore liable for some of the costs claimed. Adopting the position taken in Geraghty v Raui, I reduce the usage claimed by 33% and order reimbursement of $32.00.
Regarding reducing the fixed term, in this case the tenant argues that issues with ventilation and costs associated with running the air conditioning were not circumstances reasonably foreseeable at the commencement of the tenancy.
Under section 66 of the Act, the “unforeseen change of circumstances” must relate to the tenant personally, and not the property. If the circumstances relied on, in fact already existed at the commencement of the tenancy, then there is no qualifying change. In this case, the internal temperatures, and the tenant being responsible for electricity costs attributable to the heat pump, were property related circumstances existing at the commencement of the tenancy and were not therefore a change in the tenant’s personal circumstances.
While there may be a basis for alleging that the landlord has failed to comply with provisions relating to ventilation, potentially a breach incapable of remedy and grounds to terminate the tenancy under other provisions this is not a change in the tenant’s personal circumstances for the purpose of section 66. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
The tenancy agreement ended when the new tenancy commenced on 11 April 2025. There are no claims made against the bond. The bond is released to the tenant in full. Costs
There is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published.
Although, the landlord has been sufficiently successful and would be entitled, they do not seek name suppression. The tenant does seek name suppression, but in this case, they have not been substantially successful.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the tenant. The tenant has produced medical evidence. Upon careful consideration, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in 95A (4). The Tribunal also orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5200652 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5200652 — Tenancy dispute

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