What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5242475 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the tenants’ and the landlords’ names

How much money was awarded in case 5242475?

Compensation: Power: $84.61 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5242475?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242475?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11954807-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5242475 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the tenants’ and the landlords’ names

How much money was awarded in case 5242475?

Compensation: Power: $84.61 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5242475?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242475?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11954807-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5242475 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5242475 — net $111.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: power	$84.61	power
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$111.61
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$111.61

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5242475 — net $111.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: power	$84.61	power
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$111.61
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$111.61

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both the tenants’ and the landlords’ names and identifying details.
The landlords must pay [The tenant/s] $111.61 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlords must pay [The tenant/s] compensation for ongoing communal power costs charged solely to the power meter for the premises of $5.00 per week payable each week commencing on Saturday 7 June 2025 until the tenancy ends, which sum may be paid by the tenants reducing the rent owed each week by $5.00.
The tenants’ application for reduction of the term of the fixed-term tenancy is dismissed.
The parties consent to the landlord immediately taking steps to assign the tenancy to a replacement tenant on the following terms: a. The landlord will take steps to advertise the premises for rent; b. The tenants will allow the landlord to enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises to prospective tenants in accordance with sections 48(3) & (3A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and both parties agree that the landlord is to give 24 hours’ notice of a proposed viewing; c. The tenants will be liable for rent until the date a new tenancy commences; d. The tenants will reimburse the landlord’s reasonable advertising costs and if there is any dispute as to whether the costs are reasonable or any other issue regarding the re-letting of the premises, either party may bring an application to the Tribunal to determine the matter; e. If a replacement tenant is found, this tenancy will terminate on a date to be mutually agreed by the parties. f. The above terms will not prevent the tenants from making efforts to find a replacement tenant for the landlord’s approval, should they wish to do so.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A Mandarin interpreter also attended for the tenants.
The tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy. In addition, they seek compensation for power costs incurred for communal lights serving both this flat and the neighbouring upstairs flat (in the same building) which are connected to the power meter for these premises only.
The tenants prepared a detailed and lengthy written submission outlining their claims, supporting evidence and submissions. As English is their second language, they rely on the written documents prepared. Background and evidence
The tenants have immigrated to New Zealand from China for tertiary study. This is the first time they have rented a property in New Zealand. A fixed term tenancy agreement was entered into by the parties commencing on 1 February 2025 until 1 February 2026 with an agreed weekly rental of $425. The premises are a ground floor flat contained in a building with a separate upstairs flat rented out by the same landlord. Both flats are accessed through the same front door into a common entranceway/foyer with separate doors off the foyer to each flat. On the ground floor of the building there are three lights in the common areas used by both flats: the manually operated foyer/entrance light, an exterior porch sensor light by the front door and a double exterior sensor light outside the ground flat bathroom window. All are connected to the power meter for the ground floor flat.
The landlord did not disclose that the lights in the common areas were connected to the power meter for the ground floor flat only. The landlords said that the property was configured this way when they purchased it and in 30 plus years of renting it, the arrangement for power has not been an issue. They say the cost of power for these lights is minimal. In that regard, it appears that the landlords did not think about explaining the set-up to the tenants because the lighting costs would be minimal.
The tenants became aware early in the tenancy that the common area lights were connected to their power meter. They became concerned that the upstairs tenants were turning on the manually operated light and leaving it on and that the exterior sensor lights were being triggered constantly due to one of the upstairs tenants parking their motorcycle nearby. As a result, they claim that this was causing increased power costs for which they are paying.
The tenants have an electricity monitoring app which allows them to see exactly the power they use each day. They noticed on several occasions when away from the flat and despite turning off all appliances (including their fridge) that there was a spike in power use which they attribute to the upstairs tenants use of the lights in the common areas.
The tenants took the step of removing the lightbulbs to the sensor lights, which the landlord and the upstairs tenants did not mind at first. However, due to the theft of a vehicle in the neighbourhood, the upstairs tenants asked for the lights to be reinstated for security purposes. When the tenants did not put the bulbs back, the upstairs tenants installed LED bulbs. The landlord agreed that for security reasons it was in all tenants interests that the lights remain in place.
On 27 March 2025, the tenants issued the landlord with a 14-day notice to relocate the wiring for the lights so that they were not connected to their power meter. Other issues were also highlighted in the notice.
The landlord instructed an electrician to investigate and advise what could be done. The electrician said that relocating the wiring for the lights to the upstairs meter would cost between $2,000-$3,000 with additional costs for scaffolding. He recommended installing LED light bulbs instead which are more efficient and cheaper to run. The landlord agreed that rewiring the lights was cost prohibitive and not a proportionate solution given the minimal cost of running the lights. He instructed the electrician to install LED lights. His electrician estimated it costs approximately $7/year to run one sensor light. Therefore, the landlords offered to make a payment of $20 to the tenants to cover the likely annual cost of the lights. Later, the landlords offered the tenants compensation of $5/week for the costs of the common area lights. The tenants rejected the landlords’ offers because they do not believe they adequately addressed the ongoing issue and potential power costs.
In the meantime, the tenants say that between February and March 2025, they experienced a series of incidents, in addition to the communal lights problem, which has interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in the use of the premises. The tenant says she no longer feels safe at the premises and continues to experience a persistent sense of fear. This led to her and [tenant 2]’s request to sublet the tenancy before the fixed term expires and to this application for termination of the tenancy. The incidents are set out below. 16 February-unknown intruder
On 16 February, [Tenant 1] reported to the landlords that a woman forcibly entered the premises that day claiming that she had previously lived in the downstairs flat. She asked the landlords to consider what security measures could be taken. The landlords understood that in fact the tenant let this person into her flat. The landlords say they have little control over a situation like this and it is the tenants’ responsibility not to let strangers inside. The fibre box
Sometime in late February/March the upstairs tenants explained that there was only one fibre box for the building located in the ground floor flat. Therefore, they asked if they could plug their modem into it as this was the only way they could access Wi-Fi. The tenants say they agreed under pressure not understanding what the box was for. Later they asked that it be removed. The upstairs tenants offered to pay something towards the power costs, but the tenants did not agree, and they unplugged the modem. The landlord also asked the tenants to let the upstairs tenant have access to the fibre box, but the tenants refused and felt this was unfair given that it was connected to their power meter.
The landlords obtained advice from [internet company] that there can only be one fibre box installed at this property; that it would cost up to $1,000 to relocate the fibre box; and it costs less than $10/year in power to run a fibre box. Therefore, they offered to pay the tenants $20 to cover the fibre box running costs provided the upstairs tenants could continue to use it. The tenants rejected the offer.
In the end, the landlord arranged to have the fibre box relocated to the upstairs flat on 20 March at a cost of $878.33. The tenants say that the upstairs tenants and the landlord were unreasonable about this matter. In particular, the tenants were asked to stay home so that the technician could access their premises to relocate the fibre box. The landlords and one of the upstairs tenants gave evidence that they believe the tenants were unreasonable in their unwillingness to corporate. While one shared fibre box for two flats was not ideal, it was the only way for both flats to access Wi-Fi. It took a month for a technician to come, and the upstairs tenants were without Wi-Fi, spending tens of dollars each week to purchase data for internet access. Alleged harassment and disruption by upstairs tenants
[Tenant 1] alleged that the upstairs tenants arrived home on 20 March 2025 at approximately 10pm. She says that they came to the kitchen window and deliberately peered inside, scanning the room. She says that “with clear malicious intent these three male tenants stood outside my front door and mockingly taunted me......’no more electricity’ in creepy and sneering voices.”
On 21 March, [tenant 1] telephoned the landlord to inquire about subletting the property and spoke to him about the above incident. She then sent an email the same day advising that she had found a replacement tenant. The landlord replied on 22 March confirming his telephone advice that the tenants could sublet the tenancy subject to the landlord meeting and approving the proposed tenant. He suggested that the tenants arrange a meeting to suit the proposed tenant either in person or via Facetime. However, this did not eventuate;
On 25 March, the tenants formally reported the alleged harassment incident to the Non-Emergency 105 online reporting system operated by NZ Police. She provided a copy of the report generated by the system which is recorded as “...an automated report which has been submitted to the New Zealand Police for review....by the person who reported...and has not been validated.”
On 25 March, [tenant 1] also emailed the landlord to put in writing the alleged incident with the upstairs tenants on 20 March. She stated that it had made her feel extremely unsafe and intimidated and that she was uncomfortable and fearful staying in the flat. She asked the landlord to speak to the tenants and also asked the landlord to install a blind on the kitchen window.
On 27 March, the tenants served the 14-day notice (mentioned above) requesting that the communal lights be rewired. Tenant 1 said that because of the upstairs tenants’ alleged disruptive and harassing behaviour, she felt it was no longer reasonable for her to bear the power costs of the communal lights. In the notice she also mentioned that the green recycling crate was missing and on 28 March she reported this as stolen to Police also via the Non-Emergency 105 online reporting system. It later turned up at the property.
From 30 March to 10 April, the tenants were away from the premises. On their return, the tenants complained that there was rubbish including beer bottles scattered around the property following a party held by the upstairs tenants. They also advised that despite turning off all appliances while they were away, their electricity monitoring app showed usage which they attribute to the communal lights.
The landlord advised the tenants that he spoke with the upstairs tenants and noted that they cleaned up the grounds. At the hearing, one of the upstairs tenants gave evidence regarding their interactions with the tenants. He confirmed that the landlord spoke to them about the allegation of harassment on 20 March. They deny the claim and state that while the path to the front door is alongside the kitchen window, it is too high for them to look into the flat. They say the tenant likely saw them walking past. They also deny making the alleged comments.
The landlord also advised the tenants that he is not obliged to provide a kitchen blind but gave his permission for them to install one. He also offered compensation of $5/week for the communal lighting costs. Request to end the tenancy The tenants requested and the landlord agreed that they could find replacement tenants. He also offered to assist with the process. The parties have referred to this as a “sublet” but it is clear that they mean to assign the tenancy to a replacement tenant. The tenants position has been to require the landlord to agree to terminate the tenancy in 28 days. The landlord tried to explain that he is not obliged to agree to early termination before replacement tenants are found. Negotiations between the parties have been unsuccessful and the tenants are upset that the landlord will not agree to end the tenancy which they claim is an unreasonable stance. Impact on tenants
[Tenant 1] contends that the above incidents have impacted her sense of personal safety. She filed a personal impact statement and extensive written submissions describing persistent psychological stress; physical effects such as headaches stomach cramps, nausea, and insomnia as a result. She claims that the situation has made it difficult to concentrate and has affected her ability to meet academic obligations. The tenants claim that the extra power costs are placing financial strain on their budget.
Because English is their second language, the tenants asked for communications be in writing allowing them to carefully review messages and ensure there is a clear record. The tenants claim that the landlords responses to their complaints and requests for termination have been vague and unhelpful and the landlords have disregarded their request that all communications be in writing when they suggested a meeting to discuss matters in person. They say this has heightened their sense of vulnerability and contributed to a growing distrust in the resolution process. Furthermore, the time spent negotiating a solution with the landlord and preparing the application to the Tribunal has caused the [Tenant 1] emotional exhaustion and psychological distress.
[Tenant 1] provided a letter from a counsellor she consulted on 22 May 2025 which acknowledges that the tenant shared information about her living situation and tenancy. The counsellor states that based on her presentation she assesses that the tenant has experienced “critical circumstances involving her health and wellbeing beyond her control which have affected her significantly”.
Given that the bulk of the tenants’ evidence and submissions were presented in writing, I asked [Tenant 1] if she could explain the impact and serious hardship she says she is suffering at the hearing. She replied that the issue with the upstairs tenants on 20 March is “just a side issue” and the main issue and reason for seeking termination of the tenancy is because the landlord did not disclose that the shared lights were connected to their power meter. The lack of that information meant that the tenants did not get the opportunity to choose if they wanted the flat in those circumstances.
The tenants argue that the above series of incidents including the landlords failure to advise them of the exterior lighting arrangement is grounds for terminating the tenancy because it has caused severe hardship as described in [Tenant 1]’s personal impact statement. Evidential findings
I find the tenants have not proved that the upstairs tenants harassed Tenant 1 on 20 March as she presented. Even if I am wrong, I consider that it was a one- off incident that does not amount to harassment. The tenants confirmed at the hearing when asked that there have been no other alleged incidents of harassment by the upstairs tenants since 20 March 2025 and the upstairs tenants advise that they have avoided contact with the tenants. While the issue with the fibre box was no doubt frustrating, it has been resolved. I am also satisfied that the upstairs tenants tidied the grounds after the tenants complained. In summary, the only issue to resolve is the shared lighting costs.
As I explained at the hearing, the landlords are not obliged to end the tenancy on 28 days’ notice and before replacement tenants are found. Furthermore, I find that the written communications between the parties demonstrate that the landlords have been reasonable in their approach and offered practical solutions which the tenants have rejected, likely through a misunderstanding of the law. It is clear that the tenants have found communication challenging but I consider this is not because of any unreasonable behaviour on the landlords’ part. Given the difficulties, I consider the landlord’s suggestion that a meeting in person would be more productive to aid negotiations, was a practical response.
I do not doubt that the matters of complaint raised by the tenants were irritating. However, in isolation, the matters complained of are relatively minor and most have been resolved. As far as the allegation of harassment and breach of quiet enjoyment are concerned, I have come to the view that Tenant 1’s description of those activities and their impact is overstated.

Should the tenancy be reduced?

The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
I also do not overlook section 85 RTA which is the obligation on the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes, and the further obligation to determine each dispute according to general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations

Has there been an unforeseen change in circumstances?

The tenants main argument is that the landlords failed to disclose that communal lights were connected to the power meter for the flat. They also point out that the arrangement breaches section 39 RTA which provides: 39 Responsibility for outgoings (1) The landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that— (b) are incurred for common facilities. (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.
It is not disputed that the tenants are not liable for the costs of running communal lights. The landlord ought to have explained the situation to them before the tenancy started and how it could be managed. Similarly, the landlord should have explained that the fibre box serving both flats was also connected to the ground flat power meter. Section 39 RTA makes clear that the landlord is responsible for all outgoings incurred for common facilities. Arguably, the fact that the lights are connected to the tenants meter is an unforeseen circumstance as far as the tenants are concerned. It could be considered an issue that was well outside the contemplation of the tenants when the agreement was entered.
While the tenants cited the communal lights as the main issue for seeking termination of the tenancy, they also alleged disruptive and harassing behaviour from the upstairs tenants. However, I have already made a finding that the tenants have not proved that the upstairs tenants harassed them. In any event there is no evidence of any continuing behaviour that might be considered a breach of quiet enjoyment or harassment.

Will the tenants suffer severe hardship?

Accepting that the communal lights connected to the tenants’ power meter is an unforeseen change in circumstances, the next issue is to determine whether it will cause severe hardship to the tenants if the tenancy is not terminated
There is not a third meter to which common facilities such as the communal lights and fibre box can be connected. Likely, it would also not be feasible to install a third meter without exorbitant cost. However, I consider the power use costs are minimal and a fair assessment of the costs can be made in order to determine some compensation for the tenants. In other words, the issue is capable of amelioration or mitigation, and it could not, by any means, be considered a severe hardship to the tenants to continue the tenancy where that is the case.
I set out below the evidence given regarding power costs and make an order for compensation accordingly. I consider that this fairly disposes of the matter.
In summary, I find that the tenants will not suffer severe hardship if the tenancy continues due to the communal lights not being separately metered. The application to reduce the tenancy under s66 is therefore dismissed. Compensation for communal lights power use
The tenants seek reimbursement of all communal power costs incurred when they were absent from the property and all costs that will be incurred for the remainder of the tenancy.
The tenants provided screen shots of their electricity monitoring app showing usage over a period of 48 days between 20 February and 24 May when they were away from the property. They said that during these absences they turned off all appliances including their fridge and washing machine, so they expected there to be little or no usage. Power was consumed during these periods of varying amounts ranging from less than $1.00 to $2.74 per day. Total power calculated over this period was $84.61, an average daily cost of $1.76.
Even if the tenants turned off all appliances in their flat during periods of absence, there is a possibility that they may still draw a small amount of power especially if the appliances are not completely unplugged and are in stand-by mode or have features like clocks or displays that require power to function. Therefore, I am not persuaded that the tenants power usage should have been zero when they were absent from the premises. It is likely some power would still be used.
However, given that the landlord did not tell the tenants that the communal lights were connected to their power meter, resulting in extra costs and inconvenience for the tenants, I consider that they should be reimbursed the full costs of $84.61 claimed for the periods they were absent from the premises.
The next issue to determine is the ongoing power costs and reasonable compensation for the tenants. Based on the tenants’ evidence of power used in their absence, the apparent average daily cost was $1.76. However, as already mentioned some of the power use may relate to appliances in the flat on stand- by mode. Also, the costs of the communal lights will be less during daylight saving months.
The tenants did not provide evidence to show what they are being charged for power usage. They advised that their supplier is [power supplier]. An online search of [power supplier] charges applied to the tenants’ suburb shows that standard users may be charged $0.199/kilo-watt hours (kWh) off peak and $0.30/kWh for peak hours. However, there are different packages available.
The landlords provided an email from their electrician dated 14 April 2025 who estimated that the cost to run one sensor light with an LED bulb for one year is less than $7.00.
The landlords also gave further evidence (but did not cite their source) that an ordinary 60-watt bulb uses 60 watts per hour (or 0.06 kWh) which costs 1.278 cents per full hour. A 10-watt LED bulb uses 10 watts per full hour or 0.01 kWh which costs 0.213 cents per full hour.
Consumer NZ have published tables online setting out typical running costs of LED lights applying an average power cost of 25c/kwh. The tables state: a 60- watt LED light uses 9 watts/8 hours at a cost of 2 cents/8 hours; a 100-watt LED bulb uses 14 watts/8 hours at a cost of 3cents/8 hours.
Based on the Consumer NZ information, it can be estimated that each LED bulb used in the communal lights at these premises would not cost more than 3 cents/8 hours to run or a maximum of 9 cents/day if the light was left on for 24 hours. I consider it highly unlikely that each of the lights in this case would ever cost 9 cents/day. Three of the lights are motion activated sensors that the landlord says switch off after 60 seconds. It is unlikely that the lights would ever be left on for 8 hours. Even if the 4 LED lights were left on for 8 hours each day, this would cost a maximum of 12 cents to run each day or 84 cents/week. Therefore, the total annual cost would be less than $45.00.
In negotiations with the tenants, the landlords offered to pay $5/week to cover the costs of running the communal lights. This equates to $260/year. I consider that this would more than cover the anticipated running costs of the lights. It would also more than cover the cost of running the lights if they were left on all day. These figures are based on an average power charge of 25 cents/kWh which I consider is reasonable and accounts for off peak and high peak fluctuations which can range from 19 cents to 30 cents/kWh.
In summary, I award the tenants ongoing compensation of $5/week to cover the costs of the communal lights, which I consider is fair and reasonable. Reletting the premises
I prefaced at the hearing that the tenant’s application under s66 may not succeed and queried whether the tenants wished to take the landlord up on his offer to immediately advertise the premises to find replacement tenants. The tenants consented to the proposal which is reflected in the above orders. Costs and suppression
As the tenants have partially succeeded with their application for compensation, I award reimbursement of the filing fee paid on the application.
Both parties have applied for suppression of their names and identifying details. Under section 95A RTA, 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.
In this case both parties have succeeded to an extent. The tenants have succeeded in their claim for compensation. The landlords have succeeded in defending an application to terminate the tenancy. I find that both have succeeded in a substantial way. Therefore I grant suppression to both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5242475 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5242475 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be reduced?

Has there been an unforeseen change in circumstances?

Will the tenants suffer severe hardship?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be reduced?

Has there been an unforeseen change in circumstances?

Will the tenants suffer severe hardship?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions