Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5369927 — Healthy homes at Room 209, Unit/Flat Unit 209, 10 Alpha Street, Te Aro,
Decided 10 Dec 2025 · Published 10 Dec 2025 · Application 5369927
- Healthy homes
- Unit Titles
Order
- The tenant is responsible for paying invoices issued for the use of gas at the tenancy address.
- The tenant is responsible for paying the bond of $200.00 for the use of gas at the tenancy address.
- The landlord is responsible for paying the $35.00 connection fee for the supply of gas to the tenancy address.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 9 December 2025.
- On 1 January 2025, [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] entered into a tenancy with [The tenant/s] landlord/s] for the premises at room 209, 10 Alpha Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011.
- At the beginning of the tenancy, water was heated by electricity however, on 1 August 2025, the body corporate sent an email to the landlord advising that they had contracted with Easy Energy Limited for the supply of gas to heat hot water. The agreement with Easy Energy Limited applies to all apartments in the complex.
- The tenant seeks a declaration as to whether they are liable to pay the invoices for the supply and use of gas. The tenant claims this is an additional expense, which was not foreseen at the beginning of the tenancy. Since gas has been installed in the premises, the tenant has received invoices totalling $479.10. The tenant claims this additional expense is creating financial hardship for them.
- The tenant also seeks a declaration as to who must pay the $35.00 connection fee and $200.00 bond requested by the body corporate in their letter dated 1 August 2025.
Who is responsible for paying invoices for the use of gas at the premises?
The law
- Section 39(3) RTA states that a tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. 1 This includes electricity, gas, telephone, internet and water if the supplier charges on the basis of consumption. 2
- Clause 20 of the tenancy agreement states: The tenant is responsible for the payment of the following utilities and other charges in relation to the Property: electricity, internet, cable, telephone, heating.
- Any agreement, arrangement or provision in a tenancy agreement that is inconsistent with the RTA is of no effect, unless the inconsistency is expressly permitted by the RTA or the Tribunal. 3 Despite this, a landlord from voluntarily waive all or any of the rights and powers conferred on the landlord under the RTA, or voluntarily incur more extensive obligations than those imposed on them under the RTA. 4 Evidence and submissions of the parties
- The tenant claims that clause 20 of the tenancy agreement is inconsistent with section 39(3) RTA. This is because clause 20 does not mention gas and the term “heating” only refers to heating the premises, not to heating the water. The tenant claims the landlord told them at the beginning of the tenancy that water 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(3). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(4)(c). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 11(1). 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 11(2). was free, and a narrow interpretation of the term “heating” is consistent with this representation. The tenant claims the landlord has voluntarily waived their right to pass on the cost for the supply and use of gas at the premises to the tenant.
- The landlord claims there is no inconsistency, and the term “heating” should be interpreted broadly as referring to heating the water and premises generally. Analysis
- The tenant submitted text messages between themselves and the landlord around the provision of water to the premises. The tenant appears to have conflated the issues about the cost for the supply of water to the premises and the cost to heat the water. These are two distinct issues. The landlord advised the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy that water was free. This remains the case. The means used to heat the water, however, are not free and have never been. Previously, the water was heated through electricity, which the tenant paid for. Now, it is heated by gas. I am satisfied there has been no misrepresentation by the landlord regarding the cost for the supply of water to the premises.
- I prefer a broad interpretation of the term “heating” in clause 20 of the tenancy agreement, which includes heating of water and the premises generally. My reasons for this are as follows: a. A broad interpretation is consistent with section 39 of the RTA. The RTA provides a starting point for determining the parties’ liabilities. Consistency with the RTA is to be encouraged and any provision of a tenancy agreement that is inconsistent with the RTA, especially if it involves a landlord voluntarily incurring more extensive obligations than those imposed under the RTA, should be clear. b. A broad interpretation is also consistent with standard practice across the majority of tenancies in New Zealand. It would be very unusual for a landlord to pay for the tenant’s consumption of electricity, gas or water. c. Premises are generally heated via electricity, whether through a heat pump, panel heater or plug in heater. Clause 20 states the tenant is responsible for “electricity, internet, cable, telephone, heating.” If the term “heating” was only meant to refer to heating of the premises generally, there would most likely not be any need for it, because electricity is already included as an outgoing the tenant is responsible for. The fact that “heating” is mentioned alongside electricity, suggests the term covers something broader than just heating of the premises generally.
- For these reasons, I find the term “heating” in clause 20 of the tenancy agreement includes heating of water and the premises generally.
- The gas supplied to the premises is used to heat water, which the tenant consumes. Therefore, it is the tenant’s responsibility to pay the gas invoices issued during the tenancy. Who should pay the $35.00 connection fee and $200.00 bond?
- The landlord must pay the $35.00 connection fee, because it is not an outgoing exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. It is a one off charge to connect the supply of gas to the premises. The connection will remain between different account holders in the same way an electricity connection does.
- The tenant must pay the bond of $200.00. The letter from the body corporate states that the purpose of the bond is to provide security against any future unpaid debt and will be refunded when the account is closed. The account is in the tenant’s name and the bond is security for any unpaid debt accrued from the tenant’s use of gas. At the end of the tenancy, the tenant will close their account and receive a refund of the bond, provided there is no amount outstanding. Filing fee and name suppression
- The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I do not order the landlord to pay the filing fee.
- The tenant requested name suppression. They have not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim however, I still have a discretion to grant them name suppression under section 95(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
- The tenant claims it is their preference to have their name suppressed, but is unable to point to any prejudice they might suffer if their name was published. The circumstances of this case are very ordinary, and publication of the tenant’s name is unlikely to prejudice them in finding a new tenancy in the future. The landlord’s evidence at the hearing was the tenant was an excellent tenant in all respects.
- There is nothing special or extraordinary that would warrant name suppression for the tenant. I find the public interest in publication outweighs the tenant’s interest in suppression. For this reason, I decline to grant the tenant name suppression.
- The landlord did not seek name suppression.