What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5391066 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5391066?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Contribution to electr…: $246.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Contribution to gas co…: $71.54 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Gas bottle hire x 2 pe…: $110.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391066?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391066?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13695874-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5391066 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5391066?

Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Contribution to electr…: $246.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Contribution to gas co…: $71.54 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Gas bottle hire x 2 pe…: $110.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391066?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391066?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13695874-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5391066 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5391066 — net $755.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Contribution to gas consumption at 5	$71.54	Contribution to gas consumption at 5
Compensation: Gas bottle hire x 2 per month for 11 months	$110.00	Gas bottle hire x 2 per month for 11 months
Compensation: Contribution to electricity (as per table	$246.43	Contribution to electricity (as per table
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment- smoke and trespass	$300.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment- smoke and trespass
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$755.97
Bond	$3,500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$755.97

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5391066 — net $755.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Contribution to gas consumption at 5	$71.54	Contribution to gas consumption at 5
Compensation: Gas bottle hire x 2 per month for 11 months	$110.00	Gas bottle hire x 2 per month for 11 months
Compensation: Contribution to electricity (as per table	$246.43	Contribution to electricity (as per table
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment- smoke and trespass	$300.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment- smoke and trespass
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$755.97
Bond	$3,500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$755.97

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and Landlords names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $755.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $3,500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 29 May 2026.
The tenants applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the remaining $3,500.00 bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 21 November 2025.
The landlord made a cross application for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, refund of part of the remaining $3,500.00 bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 21 November 2025.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section109(2)(b) of the RTA, bars a party from applying for exemplary damages for a breach of the RTA 12 months or more after the date of commission of the unlawful act. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlords claim the tenants did not leave the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. They stated the carpets were not reasonably clean and tidy, and sought compensation of $862.50 for having the carpet cleaned. They also sought $500.00 for cleaning the premise, this included vacuuming the entire premise, cleaning all the windows inside and out, cleaning the ranch slider tracks, wiping down the kitchen cupboards, cleaning the ceiling fan in kids bathroom, clean dirty skirting boards, clean gully traps in bathrooms, cleaning vomit in planter outside, sweeping outside paths and removing dirty marks on walls in bedrooms.
The landlords could not produce evidence to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities and did not produce invoices or receipts for the costs claimed, as they stated they could not afford to have this work done on the premise, so cleaned the house themselves. Under New Zealand tenancy law, a landlord cannot charge a tenant for their own time spent cleaning. For these reasons the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlords claim the following damage was caused during the tenancy as a result of the tenants’ deliberate or careless acts or omissions: a. Chips and dents in the kitchen cupboard doors that had to be filled and repainted; b. Broken window latch on ensuite window; c. Broken or missing door stops; d. Broken blind; e. Broken tile; and. f. Broken downpipe.
The landlords claim this damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlords could not produce evidence to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities and did not produce invoices or receipts for the costs claimed, as they stated they could not afford to have this work done on the premise, so undertook the work themselves or sold the house in the condition it at the end of the tenancy. A landlord cannot charge a tenant for costs they did not incur. For these reasons the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Did the tenants fail to allow the landlords entry when they were entitled to enter?

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlords described how they were denied entry to the premise on 5 November 2025 to show a real estate agent through the premise for the purpose of assessing the house that was being put up for sale.
The tenants confirmed they had agreed times for viewings for potential new tenants, but the landlord had not given them notice of their intention to bring a real estate agent into the premise to provide a sales appraisal.
The landlord tried to obtain entry at the same time as a tenant viewing was to take place, after that viewing had been cancelled as there were no potential tenants wanting to view the premise. The person that was to be home for that viewing had gone out after being told that the viewing was cancelled, and the tenants did not want to have the landlords entering the house when the tenants were not home as the trust between them had gone. The tenants were within their legal rights to refuse entry to the landlord and real estate agent, when the viewing had been cancelled by the letting agent prior to the request being made by the landlords and the landlords not having given the statutorily required notice to the tenants to bring a real estate agent though for the appraisal.
The landlords have not provided any evidence that proves the tenants denied them access to the premise on 5 November 2025, or that they had issued a valid legal notice of their intention to access the premise that day for the purpose of a real estate agent providing a sales appraisal that gave them the right to enter. Therefore, the landlords claim is dismissed. Breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claim the tenants have harassed them and breached their quiet enjoyment of their portion of the premise, being the shed, shared driveway, caravan and paddocks not exclusively rented to the tenants.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” It does not contain any provisions that require tenants not to harass landlords or breach their quiet enjoyment.
The quiet enjoyment provision in the RTA provides a legal right that protects the tenant from the landlord’s interference, not the other way around. Therefore, this claim is dismissed, as there are no legal grounds that I am aware of, nor that the landlords brought to my attention, that could form a legal basis for this type of claim.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has harassed them and breached their quiet enjoyment of the premise.
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The basis for the tenants breach of quiet enjoyment claims are as follows: a. The real estate agents meeting with the landlords, in the shed next to the main dwelling the landlords had excusive occupation of, to discuss selling he property and seeking a market appraisal for it. Additionally, these agents parking in the shared driveway during these meetings; b. The landlord trespassing on the land the tenants were paying rent to exclusively occupy to run a water hose from the tenants’ house to the paddock below to flush sewer pipes in the dispersal field as part of routine maintenance; c. The landlord burning rubbish in the lower paddocks, causing smoke to blow into the tenants’ house as they were not given prior notice of the burning so did not close their windows in case the wind direction changed; d. The male landlord knocking on the tenants’ door just after the tenants issued a 14-day notice on 14 October 2025 asking him to respect their privacy and quiet enjoyment and not randomly knock on the door; e. The landlords moving ewes into a separate paddock from their lambs on a Sunday morning, after the tenants asking them not to do so as this disrupted their sleep when they had been at the airport late seeing family off on 16 November 2025; f. The landlords taking photographs of the inside of the house during a routine property inspection, that included the tenants’ personal items and the contents of the insides of cupboards, underwear, clothes and shoes in wardrobes, cars in the garage, food in the pantry etc on 25 April 2025; g. The landlord issuing a 14-day notice for excess numbers of cars and a boat parked in the shared driveway when the amended tenancy agreement (the tenants had never been provided a signed copy of) stated no more than two cars could be parked in front of the garage; h. Being told to park the male tenant’s truck on the driveway shared with neighbours so as to get it off the shared driveway in front of the premise and then being told it had to be moved from that other driveway. Real estate meetings
The landlords retained exclusive use of the shed next to the main dwelling and were entitled to meet real estate agents in the shed next to discuss selling the property and seeking a market appraisal for it. There was no evidence the participants in these meetings were making an excessive amount of noise nor that the meetings took place after 10pm at night or before 9am in the morning.
The evidence shows the tenants had often parked excessive numbers of vehicles on the shared driveway and at times blocked the landlords access as a result. I do not consider it to be a breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment that the real estate agents parked next to the shed during the meetings when the real estate agents would have moved their vehicles if required by the tenants. There was no evidence the tenants asked for these vehicles to be moved and the request being refused unreasonably.
Therefore, I find that these meetings were not a breach of the tenant’s privacy or of their quiet enjoyment and dismiss this claim accordingly. Landlord trespassing
The photographic evidence shows the male landlord trespassing on the land the tenants were paying rent to exclusively occupy to run a water hose from the tenants’ house to the paddock below to flush sewer pipes in the dispersal field as part of routine maintenance. He says he does not recall his breach of the tenants’ privacy, but accepts the evidence proves he was on their land without having given them the statutorily required notice and that was a breach of s38 of the RTA. I award the tenants $100.00 compensation for this breach of the RTA for any inconvenience or stress caused. I do not find the breach was intentional, but an oversight on the landlords’ behalf. Burning rubbish
The tenants produced photographic evidence of the male landlord burning rubbish in the lower paddocks on at least two occasions, one after they had issued a 14-day notice asking him to respect their privacy and quiet enjoyment. The burning of rubbish in the fire pit, located in the paddocks below the ones the tenants had exclusive occupation of, caused smoke to blow into the tenants’ house, as they were not given prior notice of the burning so did not close their windows and were caught out when the wind direction changed. He says he does intentionally breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment as when the burning started the wind direction was away from the house and unexpectedly changed, but he accepts the evidence proves breached s38 of the RTA when the wind blew smoke into the tenants’ premise causing stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity. I award the tenants $200.00 compensation for these unintentional breaches of the RTA for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity caused. Door knocking
The tenants were unable to provide details of the dates and times the male landlord allegedly knocked on the tenants’ door, including just after the tenants issued a 14-day notice on 14 October 2025 asking him to respect their privacy and quiet enjoyment and not randomly knock on the door. They claim he did this a lot, but he denies knocking on the door for anything but an emergency situation. I dismiss the tenants claim for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Ewes
The landlords confirm they moved two ewes into a separate paddock away from their lambs on a Sunday morning in November 2025. They also confirm they were supposed to do this on the Friday and had given the tenants notice of this. However, the slaughter person had to change the date he was coming, and rescheduled for Monday morning. The landlords say they tried to get their son to assist them to move the ewes on the Monday morning but he was only able to assist on the Sunday morning, so they had no choice as they could not move the ewes by themselves. They let the tenants know that the slaughterman changed the scheduled date/time and that the only time they could get help to move the ewes was at 9am on the Sunday.
They accept the tenants asked them not to do this as this disrupted the tenants sleep when they had been at the airport late seeing family off on 16 November 2025. The landlord thought that 9am on a Sunday was a reasonable time of day to undertake this type of activity and that it was the tenants choice to stay out late when they knew the landlords had no option but to move the ewes that Sunday morning.
I am satisfied that the ewes and lambs, having been separated, cried for 24 hours as the lambs could see their mums but could not get to them and the landlords say there were no other paddocks they could have reasonably put these animals in to prevent the disruption to the tenants.
I find the landlords did not intentionally breach the tenants quiet enjoyment of the premise and that when you are living on a farm you can reasonably expect to be subject to some animal noise that is outside of your landlord’s control as a result of farming practices and the necessary timeframes farm practices, such as slaughtering sheep that have just had lambs, happen in. I therefore dismiss the tenants claim. Photographs of personal items during an inspection
The landlords confirm they did take photographs of the inside of the house during a routine property inspection, that included the tenants’ personal items and the contents of the insides of cupboards, underwear, clothes and shoes in wardrobes, cars in the garage, food in the pantry etc on 25 April 2025. They did this to provide a thorough and accurate record of the condition of the premise on that day and did not set out specifically to photograph the tenants belongings, but could not avoid doing so when their personal belongings were everywhere in the house. These photographs were not published anywhere and were taken for the sole purpose of the inspection.
I am satisfied that it is near impossible for landlords to avoid photographing tenants’ personal belongings during an inspection and that the landlords photographed the property to document its condition, and did not focus on photographing the tenants personal belongings. The landlords evidence confirmed the photos were intended to document the structural condition of the house, and not intrude into the tenants’ personal life. For these reasons I dismiss the tenants claim. Cars and boat and in shared driveway
The landlord issuing a 14-day notice for excess numbers of cars and a boat parked in the shared driveway when the amended tenancy agreement (the tenants had never been provided a signed copy of) stated no more than two cars could be parked in front of the garage is not a breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment.
The landlords shared the driveway and needed to use it to move vehicles out of their shed. They were entitled to ask the tenants to move vehicles that blocked the shared driveway, regardless of what was recorded in the tenancy agreement(s).
Further the landlords explained why they amended the original tenancy agreement, being the letting agent had been advised of the limit on the number of cars that could be parked in front of the tenants’ garage without blocking the shared driveway, and the letting agent forgot to include this in the tenancy agreement. The tenants agree that they signed the amendment. They say they forgot about it because they were not given a copy of the amended page.
I find that the landlords were entitled to issue the 14-day notice and that doing so was not a breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premise. The tenants’ claim is therefore dismissed. Tenants truck in shared driveway
The landlords confirm telling the male tenant to park his truck on the side of the driveway shared with neighbours, so as to get it off the shared driveway in front of the premise. After giving the tenant this instruction, the neighbours complained and asked for it to be removed. The landlord thought this was a bit petty but had to observe their request and asked the tenant to move it. He pointed out the male tenant had purchased the truck after telling the landlords that his work truck was going, and they would be back to the two vehicles and the boat.
I find it was not unreasonable for the landlord to ask the tenants to move the truck under these circumstances and it is not a breach of their quiet enjoyment of the property. The tenants’ claim is therefore dismissed.

How much is owed for utilities?

The tenants states they had concerns throughout the tenancy that the premise was not on separate gas and electricity meters, and they were required to pay for three water tank top ups of 11,000 litres when three households were using the water. Therefore, they dispute liability for the utility bills they paid during their 11-month tenancy.
The tenants refers to section 39(3) of the RTA, which says, “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” and says that without separate meters there is no proof that they used all of the water, power and gas they had paid for. Additionally, they disputed having to pay the fixed charges of $5.00 per bottle for the hire of two gas bottles per month that were being used by the tenant of the minor dwelling as well as them when landlords are required to pay the fixed costs associated with providing the utility to the property. Electricity
The parties confirmed the main house rented by the tenants, the granny flat rented by an elderly single man living alone and the landlords living in the caravan and using a shed on the premise all used electricity paid for by the tenants.
The landlords say they have never charged the tenant of the granny flat for power as when they shared the premise with him, they found his use was negligible. They accept that he did use power to drive the water pump when he showered or used any water to flush the toilet, wash his hands or the like. He also used power for his lights. The hot water was heated by gas via a califont hot water system.
The tenancy agreement does state the landlords may access power and water at times and the tenants agreed to this when they signed the agreement. They say they tried to work out a system for sharing the costs because of this clause but the parties could never reach agreement.
The landlords confirmed they had solar panels on the caravan (30 watts on its roof) and separate gas cooking and that they only used the power infrequently to run the water pump for the shed, or the radio or power tools in the shed or if they had 4 to 5 cloudy days in a row and the solar power needed a top up.
Additionally, the parties confirmed the landlords were away from New Zealand from 1 June to 4 October 2025 and the tenants had their parents staying with them for three months from February to May 2025, so the seven-way split the tenants requested was not fair.
The tenants seek a 25% power consumption rebate from the $1,998.87 they paid in power over the 11-month tenancy.
I find it fair to reimburse the tenants at a rate of 5% for the landlords and 5% for the tenant of the granny flat for the months of January, May, October and November, 2.5% for the landlords and 2.5 % for the tenant of the granny flat for the months of February to April 2025 when the tenants had two additional occupants, and 5% for the months of June to September 2025 when the landlords were away and the tenant of the granny flat continued to use some power. Months in 2025 Total amount paid by tenants Rebate rateTotal $ rebate January$207.395% landlords and 5% other tenant$20.73 February$255.402.5% landlords and 2.5% other tenant$12.77 March$263.402.5% landlords and 2.5% other tenant$13.17 April$297.352.5% landlords and 2.5% other tenant$14.87 May$353.455% landlords and 5% other tenant$35.34 June$388.995% other tenant$19.45 July$535.345% other tenant$26.77 August$482.925% other tenant$24.15 September$339.915% other tenant$17.00 October $339.915% landlords and 5% other tenant$33.99 November$281.975% landlords and 5% other tenant$28.19 Total power rebate (landlords away 1 June to 4 October and tenants’ parents staying for three months in February to May). $246.43 Gas
The tenant seeks a rebate on her gas bills and for the hire of the gas bottles.
The landlords did not use the gas, but the other tenant in the granny flat did.
The landlords are liable to paying the gas bottle hire as they are responsible for the fixed costs of getting the utility to the premise.
The landlords says it is unfair to charge the other tenant as he paid to have the gas bottles filled two days before the tenants tenancy commenced.
I find that the landlords owe the tenants for the cost of hire of two gas bottles a month for $5.00 per bottle, being $110.00 for the 11 month tenancy and I award compensation of this amount to the tenants.
I also find the landlords should pay 5% of the cost of the gas that their other tenant used and did not pay the tenants for, when the landlord was responsible for the cost of the gas fill at the start of the tenancy. 5% of the $1,430.00 gas payments made by the tenant is a total compensatory sum of $71.54, which I award to the tenants. Water
The tenants say the water tanks were three quarters fill when the tenancy started, being around 17,250 litres of water in each of the two 23,000 litre water tanks. This should have been enough to supply the 7 occupants of the property. However, in February and March, when the tenants had their two parents staying, they ran out of water three times and had to buy 11,000 litres of water each time at a cost of $275.00 per tank.
They seek reimbursement of this cost from the landlords as they and the tenant of the granny flat also use some water.
I find the evidence supports the landlords view that they and the other tenants water use was negligible and that it is likely that the increased number of 6 occupants of the main house used excess water during the February/March 2025 period and that was what led to the water tanks being depleted. Therefore, I dismiss the tenants claims for reimbursement of $825.00 it cost to top up the water tanks during those two months.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Because the landlords have not wholly or substantially succeeded with their claims I dismiss their application for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord and tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
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.
The tenants have substantially succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenants’ names and identifying details is ordered.
Although the landlords have not wholly or substantially succeeded in their proceedings, I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlords conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the landlords’ names and identifying details is also ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391066 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391066 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants fail to allow the landlords entry when they were entitled to enter?

TENANTS CLAIMS

How much is owed for utilities?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants fail to allow the landlords entry when they were entitled to enter?

TENANTS CLAIMS

How much is owed for utilities?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions