What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5355985 about?

The tribunal order states: Cayman Group Limited’s claim for reimbursement of power is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5355985?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5355985?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5355985?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12835782-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5355985 about?

The tribunal order states: Cayman Group Limited’s claim for reimbursement of power is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5355985?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5355985?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5355985?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12835782-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 40 Shannon Street, Alexandra, Alexandra 9320 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5355985 — Exemplary damages

Order

Cayman Group Limited’s claim for reimbursement of power is dismissed.
[The tenant/s]’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing of the parties’ applications commenced on 15 October 2025. Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely. Mr Wimsett appeared on behalf of the landlord.
The hearing was adjourned to allow the landlord to provide further information within the next week. He was unable to do so and so a one-month adjournment was allowed.
Both parties attended the reconvened hearing yesterday, 8 December 2025.
The onus of proof is on each party to prove their claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. That means that I must find that an alleged fact is more likely than not to be true.
The tenancy began on or about 11 April 2025. The tenancy ended on or before 8 October 2025 as the result of the landlord giving notice.
The landlord’s claim is for reimbursement of power used during the tenancy.
The tenant’s claims were for: a. retaliatory notice b. exemplary damages for i. lack of a tenancy agreement and ii. failure to lodge the bond.
As noted in the minute of 15 October, the tenant did not pursue the claim for retaliatory notice, and no bond was actually paid. That leaves the following issues: a. Should the tenant be ordered to pay the landlord for power? b. Should the landlord be ordered to pay exemplary damages for the lack of a tenancy agreement?
At today’s hearing, the tenant also claimed compensation for stress. This was a new claim, not referred to in the tenant’s application. I indicated that I could see no evidence of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. If the tenant wants to purse a claim for this or anything else, he must file a further application in the Tenancy Tribunal. Power
Under section 39(4) of the Act, the tenant is responsible for his use of power.
Section 11 provides that any agreement that is inconsistent with the Act is of no effect. The Tribunal may decide to allow the inconsistency if satisfied that it should be permitted, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case.
Section 11(2) specifically says that a landlord may voluntarily waive any right or power, or take on more extensive obligations that are found in the Act.
One example of this is when the landlord includes certain outgoings in the rent. This is usually recorded in a written tenancy agreement. Because there is no such document in this case, I must look at the surrounding evidence.
As recorded in the minute of 15 October, the landlord seeks $1,001.15 for power for the period from 29 June 2025 until 5 September 2025.
Today, the landlord said there is a further invoice for over $300. I did not allow him to file that today. It is almost 8 weeks since the first scheduled hearing took place. He has had ample opportunity to file all relevant information.
In his original application, the landlord included a copy of an undated letter on from Mr Wimsett to Cayman Group Limited confirming that the tenant wanted to rent a 1-bedroom unit at 40 Shannon Street for $375 a week, and the bond was $1,125. The letterhead is for Latitude Group.
The tenant disputes that he owes power, saying that power was included in the weekly rent of $375.
The landlord provided a copy of a letter dated 11 September 2025 addressed to Mr Harris, with evidence of power bills and a calculation of power owed. Again, this was on Latitude Group letterhead and is signed by Mr Wimsett as director of Cayman Group Limited. The letter confirms that the power for three units was in the landlord’s name. He was happy to pay the power until 28 June, when he had meters installed for this and two other units at the premises.
The letter says that it now supersedes all previous letters and invoices. This is the only letter addressed to Mr Harris.
In support of the tenant’s that he understood that the rent included power, he filed a copy of an undated letter on Latitude Group letterhead. It is identical to the one described above at paragraph 16 but says that the rent is $375 a week including outgoings.
Mr Wimsett has referred to the tenant’s letter, (which says that the rent included outgoings), as “Letter 1”. According to the WINZ compliments slip, Letter 1 was scanned into their system on 10 April 2025. Mr Wimsett told the Tribunal that this letter was the first one provided to WINZ, but that was rejected. He was told that WINZ would pay accommodation only.
Mr Wimsett then provided “Letter 2” which makes no reference to outgoings. In all other respects, the letter is identical to Letter 1. WINZ say this was scanned into their system on 15 April 2025.
The tenant says that he had no knowledge of the second letter. The landlord says that he gave it to Mr Harris to take to WINZ. Mr Harris denies that he has seen it or that he took it to WINZ.

Has the landlord established that the tenant is liable for power?

The onus is on the landlord to prove the terms of the agreement between the parties.
As noted above, tenants are usually liable for payment of their use of power. In most cases this is straightforward because: a. the tenant has an account with a power company. b. it is recorded in the tenancy agreement.
The copies of letters provided to WINZ have not been signed by Mr Harris or even addressed to him.
Mr Harris says that he understood that power was included in the $375 per week, as recorded in Letter 1.
The tenant says he had no knowledge of Letter 2.
There is no explanation why the weekly rent remained $375 in Letter 2, even though outgoings were no longer included.
The landlord was using power in the premises and paid for all power for the first 2 ½ months.
Taking into account all of the above, the balance of evidence has not been tipped in the landlord’s favour. There was an agreement that the rent would include power. The letter of 11 September 2025 appears to be a proposed variation of that earlier agreement. Mr Harris did not accept it.
Mr Wimsett has not established on the balance of probabilities that the tenant agreed to pay $375 exclusive of outgoings. The claim is dismissed. Lack of tenancy agreement
Section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 says that all tenancy agreements must be in writing. The landlord must prepare it, sign it and give a copy to the tenant, who must then sign it.
Failure to comply with these provisions amounts to an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may order exemplary damages.
Section 13C provides that a tenancy agreement may be enforceable, even if not in writing.
At the hearing on 15 October, in explanation for the lack of tenancy agreement, the landlord said that he has an arrangement with WINZ and often provides short-term accommodation for WINZ customers. He said there is never a tenancy agreement. He was given one week to provide a statement from WINZ: a. clarifying the nature of the accommodation agreement; b. whether in such a situation there is usually a written agreement between the client and landlord and if not, why not. c. what communications WINZ had with the landlord and/or tenant regarding the rent and utilities and who was responsible for them. d. did WINZ increase the rent payments at any time and on what basis.
The hearing was adjourned to allow the landlord to provide further information about the nature of the agreement with the tenant and with WINZ. The landlord was not able to provide the information. His request from WINZ was treated as a request under the Official Information Act. A further month was allowed for the landlord to gather the information.
In fact, Mr Wimsett had already provided a letter dated 15 April 2025 from Work and Income that [The tenant/s] had been approved accommodation security cover for Cayman Group Limited and the property at 40 Shannon Street, Alexandra. It goes on to set out the terms and conditions of the security cover, including that an accommodation agreement needs to be in place and a copy provided to Work and Income. This is contrary to the evidence Mr Wimsett gave, that there is not usually such an agreement.
WINZ has now provided copies of letters referred to below, with a handwritten compliments slip advising the dates certain letters from Mr Wimsett were scanned into the WINZ system.
I am satisfied that there was an agreement between the landlord and tenant that the tenant would live at the premises in exchange for rent. There was therefore a residential tenancy agreement. Despite the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act and the requirements of the accommodation security cover, there was no written agreement.

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

By not providing a written agreement, the landlord has committed an unlawful act (see section 13 (4)).
Section 109 provides that if the Tribunal considers it is just, the Tribunal may order exemplary damages for an unlawful act, taking into account: a. the intent of that person in committing the unlawful act; and b. the effect of the unlawful act; and c. the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. the public interest.
At the first hearing, the landlord’s reason for not having a tenancy agreement was because of the arrangement he had with WINZ. He was provided an opportunity to provide evidence from WINZ about that arrangement. That evidence did not eventuate.
The landlord felt that he was doing the tenant a favour by organising accommodation at short notice, and let him move in over the weekend, not charging him rent. The landlord was busy at the time and did not get an agreement done.
The tenant did not dispute that he approached the landlord for accommodation and was quite desperate, but that does not explain why the landlord did not have the tenant sign a standard tenancy agreement at any time.
The lack of a tenancy agreement has had little impact on the tenant and has probably disadvantaged the landlord. On this occasion I have decided it would not be just to order exemplary damages.
If the landlord intends to let residential properties, Mr Wimsett is strongly advised to inform himself of his rights and responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act. He seems to be confused about the significance of being an approved provider by WINZ. He does not seem to be aware of the need for a tenancy agreement in all cases and the mandatory contents of such an agreement.
Neither party has been successful and so there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5355985 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 40 Shannon Street, Alexandra, Alexandra 9320

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5355985 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 40 Shannon Street, Alexandra, Alexandra 9320

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord established that the tenant is liable for power?

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord established that the tenant is liable for power?

Should the landlord pay exemplary damages?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions