Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5304709 — Rent arrears at 297 Beach Road, Campbells Bay, Auckland 0630
Decided 27 Feb 2026 · Published 27 Feb 2026 · Application 5304709
- Rent arrears
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
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 tenant/s] must pay Kauri Trustee Services Limited As Trustee For The Utopia Trust $4,648.40 immediately, as shown below.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by one of its directors Mr Bosch. The tenant attended by telephone. The Claims
- The tenancy ended on 13 August 2025 after the tenant gave Notice of Termination.
- There is no dispute that there was unpaid rent of $11,686.00 and unpaid water rates of $2,424.90 at the end of the tenancy.
- The unpaid rent amount takes into account a rent rebate agreed in an e-mail exchange between the parties on 1 May 2025.
- As those claims brought by the landlord are not disputed, the hearing proceeding as a hearing of the tenant’s counter claims. Those claims are that: a. she should be compensated for excessive electricity use; b. exemplary damages should be awarded for the landlord’s failure to address the causes of the excessive electricity use; c. she should be compensated for breach of her right to quiet enjoyment of the premises; d. exemplary damages should be awarded for the landlord having exposed her to risk from a live wire being left insecurely at the premises for 2 weeks. Background
- Both parties report having had a very positive landlord/ tenant relationship. Both express regret at the deterioration in that relationship.
- At the core of this dispute are the exceptionally high electricity charges paid by the tenant.
- The tenant’s concern about the size of her power bills was brought to the landlord’s attention early in the tenancy.
- It was not until July 2025 that electricity charges reduced to more expected levels.
- Work was done to the electrical reticulation around that time, including the installation of a new meter.
- The tenant says that she cannot show with certainty what the cause of the excessive electricity use was but whatever was done in July 2025 to fix the problem, ought to have been done much earlier, saving her the excessive electricity bills she paid until then.
- The landlord has provided a report from Ward Electrical which confirms that after several visits to inspect the property, no faults were found which could have caused excessive electricity consumption.
- The tenant asked her electricity supplier for an electricity use audit but was only provided with a self-assessment checklist.
- Mr Bosch for the landlord says that in amongst the other work being done around July 2025, he tested the Moisture Master mechanical ventilation system and found it to have a very high electricity consumption.
- That system is designed, like common HRV systems, to circulate warm dry air from the ceiling cavity to other parts of the house helping with heating, ventilation and reduction of dampness and mould.
- This particular system, unlike many others, has a 2.2kW heating component, as well as a fan to circulate air around the premises.
- Ms Bosch points out that at the start of the tenancy, “House Instructions” were provided to the tenant, including a recommendation that the Moisture Master system be left on auto mode, meaning it would only turn on when required by the conditions. Mr Bosch acknowledged that the recommendation was made for air circulation/ ventilation benefits, rather than to maximise the energy efficiency of the system.
- Mr Bosch says that when testing it, he found the Moisture Master had been used in manual mode, meaning both the heater and fan would have been constantly running. He says that is the principal cause of the tenant’s high electricity consumption.
- The tenant says she did turn the Moisture Master system on to help with heating and ventilation but was never told that by doping so she would be turning on a 2.2kW heater that would use a lot of electricity – unlike the HRV fan only systems she was familiar with.
- Mr Bosch accepts the tenant was not told that using the system manually would have that result. Findings Electricity charges
- On the evidence available, I find it proved more likely than not, that use of the Moisture Master system in manual mode, was a major contributor to the tenant’s very high electricity consumption.
- I do not find it proved that the landlord breached its obligation to provide and maintain the electrical reticulation in a reasonable state of repair and maintenance 1 . There is no evidence of any fault that had not been repaired. 1 See s.45(1)(b) RTA
- Essentially what the evidence shows is both parties trying to find the solution to what was clearly a problem with excessive electricity consumption at the premises. The solution was found in July 2025. The tenant bore the entire cost of the problem up to that point.
- The tenant was caused very significant loss by using the Moisture Master system in a way that had consequences she was not made aware of. It is true though that had she followed the instruction to use it in auto mode, the loss would have been much mitigated.
- My finding is that although the tenant is responsible for payment of the electricity charges 2 the landlord should contribute to the charges resulting from use of the Moisture Master system. The tenant should have used it as instructed. The landlord should have told the tenant about the electricity consumption that she would incur if she didn’t.
- In looking at how compensation should be calculated, it would not be fair to compare the tenant’s electricity use with a nominal average household use.
- Instead, I should assess as best I can what loss was caused to the tenant from used of the Moisture Master system.
- The landlord has provided calculations which suggest a daily cost of $10.80, based on the running cost of a 2.5kW heating element running 24 hours a day multiplied by the applicable kWh charges.
- That calculation produces a result not unfair to the tenant and I adopt that daily cost as the basis for assessing the compensation amount.
- The tenancy began on 30 June 2023. The problem was resolved 2 years later.
- During that period the cost of the Moisture Master system operating would be $7,884.00 (365 x 2 x 10.80).
- It would be fair for the landlord to contribute $3,500.00 – slightly less than 50% toward that cost. Exemplary Damages – electricity charges
- Because I have not found a breach of the landlord’s obligations that comprises an unlawful act, there is no basis for an award of exemplary damages to be made.
- Exemplary damages are not to provide compensation but to punish unlawful conduct. Even if it could be said (with hindsight) that Mr Bosch ought to have considered the Moisture Master system as a possible source of the high 2 S.39(4) RTA electricity consumption before he did, it is clear that sustained efforts were made to find and fix the problem. The electrician Mr Ward visited several times.
- In those circumstances an award of exemplary damages would not be just. Breach of Right to Quiet Enjoyment
- The same rationale applies to the tenant’s claim that her right to quiet enjoyment of the premises was lessened because of the frequency and duration of visits made to the premises by Mr Bosch, with or without tradespeople, to try and sort out the problem.
- Those visits were to try and fix a problem which was the tenant’s problem in the sense that it was the amount of electricity used and paid for by her that the landlord was trying to address. It would not be just to penalise the landlord for those efforts.
- Toward the end of the tenancy the premises were marketed for sale. The tenant was required to keep the premises in “open home” condition. There is no dispute that she did that well.
- Over an 8 day period there were 8 visits to the premises by prospective purchasers.
- In the ordinary course, where a tenant has to put up with needing to keep the premises “staged” for sale and having to accommodate inspections, sometimes at short notice, which would be seen as an intrusion on the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises that some compensation should be made for.
- The question here is whether the rent rebate noted in the 1 May e-mail referred to above, already included compensation for the tenants’ efforts to assist the sale at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says it did. The tenant says that the reason for the discount was to encourage the tenant to remain in the tenancy because she was otherwise thinking of giving notice and the landlord did not want to sell the property at that time.
- In the 1 May txt the landlord notes, “We are happy to make this work for you so you can stay in the house. We would like to think we are “banking” some goodwill with you for when it comes time to sell the house & you will assist with presenting the house well, etc.”
- Considerable goodwill in assisting with the sale appears to have been provided by the tenant in accepting short notice inspections and in the efforts she made to present the property well.
- The landlord does seem to have received a significant benefit by the tenant remaining in the premises, albeit with a rent reduction, during a time when the landlord did not want to sell but could not re-rent.
- I do not find it proved that the tenant waived an entitlement she would otherwise have to compensation for the intrusion into her use and enjoyment of the premises caused by the viewings and sale process.
- Half a week’s rent is suitable compensation. Live Wire
- The evidence does not prove a breach of the landlord’s obligation under s.45(1)(ca) RTA to comply with regulatory requirements because of the way the electrician left a wire while working on the electricity issues.
- Because both parties have had claims upheld no order is made about the filing fees.