How much money was awarded in case 5257137?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257137?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257137?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12043569-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5257137?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257137?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257137?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12043569-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5257137 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5257137 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5257137 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

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

By consent it is declared that the Tenant is not liable for the electricians charge of $152.54 incurred on or about August 2024.

The Landlord shall pay the Tenant $27.00 immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord and Tenant, [Tenant 1], both attended the hearing by telephone. The second Tenant, [Tenant 2], was called on his New Zealand and Australian phone numbers provided to the Tribunal but did not answer.

The Tenant applied for a finding from the Tribunal regarding who should be liable for a cost incurred by a third-party contractor (an electrician), whether the Landlord had fulfilled their responsibilities in relation to this issue, whether the Tenant’s original enquiry reasonably justified the contractor’s involvement, and whether the matter could have been avoided through better communication and due diligence by the Landlord. The Tenants also sought reimbursement of the filing fee.

The application is slightly unusual in that the Tenant was not seeking any compensation, exemplary damages or refund of the bond but rather a finding made by the Tribunal.

[Tenant 1] advised that [Tenant 2] had taken the lead in preparing the application but proceeded to present the details in his absence. She submitted that the Landlord had charged them $152.54 on or about August 2024 for an electrician to investigate a noise coming from a bedroom fan. The Tenants never asked the for an electrician to investigate but rather asked if there were any known building issues. The noise issue was resolved by turning off a switch that the Tenants had not been shown at the start of the tenancy. They argued that the Landlord failed in their duty of care to inform them of this switch and that it was unfair to charge them for the contractor’s visit. The Tenants claimed that the Landlord subsequently withheld this amount from their bond.

In response, the Landlord stated they did not ultimately charge the Tenants for the electrician’s invoice. They agreed the Tenant was not liable. They provided a tenancy account summary showing the charge of $162.96 was entered on 6 March 2025 but then reversed on 1 August 2025, confirming the invoice was cleared and no payment was sought from the Tenants.

In considering the evidence, I find the Tenants were not liable for the charge and the Landlord has acknowledged this. This is based on the parties verbal evidence and the tenancy summary provided by the Landlord. The Tenants application however never sought a refund of the bond or reimbursement of any amount. Had they requested this in their application, the amount could have been reimbursed if there was evidence they were charged. It is not the Tribunal’s role however to make an Order where a party never requested it in their application.

As there has been agreement reached regarding liability and this Order merely formalises this agreement, name suppression is granted to both parties and the Landlord shall reimburse the filing fee to the Tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5257137 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlords name and identifying details.
By consent it is declared that the Tenant is not liable for the electricians charge of $152.54 incurred on or about August 2024.
The Landlord shall pay the Tenant $27.00 immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord and Tenant, [Tenant 1], both attended the hearing by telephone. The second Tenant, [Tenant 2], was called on his New Zealand and Australian phone numbers provided to the Tribunal but did not answer.
The Tenant applied for a finding from the Tribunal regarding who should be liable for a cost incurred by a third-party contractor (an electrician), whether the Landlord had fulfilled their responsibilities in relation to this issue, whether the Tenant’s original enquiry reasonably justified the contractor’s involvement, and whether the matter could have been avoided through better communication and due diligence by the Landlord. The Tenants also sought reimbursement of the filing fee.
The application is slightly unusual in that the Tenant was not seeking any compensation, exemplary damages or refund of the bond but rather a finding made by the Tribunal.
[Tenant 1] advised that [Tenant 2] had taken the lead in preparing the application but proceeded to present the details in his absence. She submitted that the Landlord had charged them $152.54 on or about August 2024 for an electrician to investigate a noise coming from a bedroom fan. The Tenants never asked the for an electrician to investigate but rather asked if there were any known building issues. The noise issue was resolved by turning off a switch that the Tenants had not been shown at the start of the tenancy. They argued that the Landlord failed in their duty of care to inform them of this switch and that it was unfair to charge them for the contractor’s visit. The Tenants claimed that the Landlord subsequently withheld this amount from their bond.
In response, the Landlord stated they did not ultimately charge the Tenants for the electrician’s invoice. They agreed the Tenant was not liable. They provided a tenancy account summary showing the charge of $162.96 was entered on 6 March 2025 but then reversed on 1 August 2025, confirming the invoice was cleared and no payment was sought from the Tenants.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenants were not liable for the charge and the Landlord has acknowledged this. This is based on the parties verbal evidence and the tenancy summary provided by the Landlord. The Tenants application however never sought a refund of the bond or reimbursement of any amount. Had they requested this in their application, the amount could have been reimbursed if there was evidence they were charged. It is not the Tribunal’s role however to make an Order where a party never requested it in their application.
As there has been agreement reached regarding liability and this Order merely formalises this agreement, name suppression is granted to both parties and the Landlord shall reimburse the filing fee to the Tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257137 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257137 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions