What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5428030 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5428030?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5428030?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5428030?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13508500-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5428030 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5428030?

Compensation: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5428030?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5428030?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13508500-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 1, 243 Mount Albert Road, Wesley, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5428030 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5428030 — net $1,828.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Compensation	$300.00	21. Accordingly: a) I award $300.00 in compensation to address historical ambiguity in the arrangement which allowed for periods where the room was occupied by…
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,828.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,828.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants name and identifying details.
The Worx Property Management Limited As Agent For Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel & Hargun must pay [The tenant/s] $1,828.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy commenced on 7 April 2025 for a fixed term of one year. It has since rolled over into a periodic tenancy.
The tenant made this application seeking a reduction of the fixed term and alleging landlord breaches under section 45, namely a failure to maintain the premises. The tenant also raised concerns regarding the arrangement for water, electricity, and internet.
The property is a three-bedroom townhouse. One bedroom is located on the ground floor and is occupied by another tenant of the landlord. The two upstairs bedrooms and the garage are occupied by the applicant tenant.
At the commencement of the tenancy, a different property manager was acting on behalf of the agency, and it is unclear precisely how the utilities agreement was reached. However, both the current property manager and the tenant agree that there was an arrangement under which the landlord would pay $30.00 per week toward utilities. This amount was intended to cover electricity, water, and internet usage for the downstairs room occupied by the landlord’s other tenant.
The applicant asks the Tribunal to review this utilities arrangement and to determine whether compensation or exemplary damages are appropriate in relation to the alleged failure to maintain. Is the arrangement regarding the utilities consistent with the provisions of The

RTA?

The question arises whether there is anything improper in the utilities agreement.
Section 39(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a tenant is responsible for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to their occupation or use of the premises. In effect, the default position is that a tenant is only liable for charges that can be clearly attributed to them.
Where multiple tenancies share utilities, the usual and appropriate approach is either: a) for the landlord to include such costs within the rent and retain the utilities in their own name; or b) to install a check meter, enabling accurate apportionment of usage, with the landlord charging tenants based on verified consumption.
In this case, the parties adopted a third arrangement: the utilities are held in the tenant’s name, and the landlord contributes $30.00 per week to account for usage attributable to the downstairs occupant.
Section 11(3) of the Act provides that any agreement that purports to waive or limit a tenant’s rights is of no effect. It does not prevent the parties from negotiating terms of a tenancy but it does protect a tenant given the unbalanced power dynamics from foregoing their baseline entitlements under the act.
The validity of this arrangement therefore depends on whether it operates to the tenant’s advantage in that it is consistent with the intent of s39(3) or disadvantages them and exposes them to costs that are unlikely incurred by themselves.
If the $30.00 contribution is advantageous to the tenant, the agreement may stand. If it is disadvantageous, it would contravene section 11(3), be of no effect, and the landlord would be responsible for the utilities in their entirety.
In such circumstances, section 85(2) requires the Tribunal to determine the matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case.
The tenant’s evidence is that, at the commencement of the tenancy, they agreed to the $30.00 arrangement on the basis that only one person would occupy the downstairs room, being an employee of the landlord and that they agreed this was fair compensation.
I accept this evidence. The landlord’s conduct in making payments confirms that such an agreement existed and they do not dispute that. Furthermore, based on average usage observed in utility accounts that routinely come before the tribunal approximately $30.00 per week seems fair and reasonable compensation for utilities for one bedroom and one occupant.
The tenant’s concern is not with the existence of the arrangement itself, but with: a) the landlord’s sporadic payment of the agreed contribution; and b) the fact that the downstairs occupant has since been joined by a partner.
The parties appear content with the $30.00 weekly figure in principle. However, I accept that the agreement was made on the basis of a single occupant. A material change in occupancy alters the underlying basis of the agreement and engages section 11(3), such that any ambiguity must not operate to the tenant’s disadvantage.
Requiring the landlord at this stage to install check meters would introduce unnecessary complexity and uncertainty, and would not promote the fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute, consistent with section 85.
I therefore find that the original agreement, $30.00 per week for one occupant, was fair. However, any ambiguity arising from that agreement must be borne by the landlord.
Accordingly: a) I award $300.00 in compensation to address historical ambiguity in the arrangement which allowed for periods where the room was occupied by more than one tenant up to 1 May 2026; b) I order that the landlord pay $30.00 per week for any week where the room occupied by a single occupant from May 1 2026; c) I order that the amount increase to $45.00 per week for any week in which more than one person occupies that room from May 1 2026. d) For periods in which the room is vacant, the landlord remains liable to pay $30.00 per week.
In light of the landlord’s failure in the past year to make payments consistently, and the property manager’s refusal to administer the arrangement, I find it appropriate that: a) the tenant may deduct $30.00 or $45.00 (as applicable) from the rent; and
the property manager must record the landlords utility payment as a credit in the rent summary.
If the arrangement becomes impractical or unsatisfactory, the landlord may instead take the utilities into their own name and install check meters to comply with section 39(3).

Was there a failure to maintain?

Section 45(1) requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant has provided evidence that, shortly after the commencement of the tenancy (14 April 2025), they raised multiple maintenance issues, including the doorbell, garage remote, air conditioning remote, letterbox, alarm, balcony doors, towel rail, a kitchen leak, and various internal doors.
The tenant followed up on 28 April, and again in May and June. These issues were largely not addressed. At one point, the landlord’s downstairs occupant undertook minor repairs. In July, the tenant arranged for a handyman to repair the kitchen leak and one of the doors at their own expense which the landlord later reimbursed.
Many remaining issues were only addressed in October 2025, after a new property manager took over, with some not resolved until 10 February 2026.
The landlord does not materially dispute this evidence, attributing the delay to communication failures involving the previous property manager.
I find that numerous maintenance issues, albeit relatively minor, remained unresolved for an extended period of up to ten months. This reflects both a failure to respond and poor management of repairs.
A breach of section 45 is an unlawful act under section 45(1A). I am satisfied that the breach was intentional, as evidenced by the prolonged inaction and communications indicating awareness of the issues without timely resolution.
I accept that the cumulative effect of these failures impacted the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises. However, I also take into account that the individual issues were largely minor in nature.
The maximum exemplary damages available for this breach are $7,200. In the circumstances, an award at the lower end is appropriate.
Accordingly, I award exemplary damages of $1,500.00. The filing fee and suppression:
Because the applicant has been successful I have awarded the filing fee and suppressed their details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5428030 — net $1,828.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Compensation	$300.00	21. Accordingly: a) I award $300.00 in compensation to address historical ambiguity in the arrangement which allowed for periods where the room was occupied by…
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,828.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,828.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants name and identifying details.
The Worx Property Management Limited As Agent For Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel & Hargun must pay [The tenant/s] $1,828.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy commenced on 7 April 2025 for a fixed term of one year. It has since rolled over into a periodic tenancy.
The tenant made this application seeking a reduction of the fixed term and alleging landlord breaches under section 45, namely a failure to maintain the premises. The tenant also raised concerns regarding the arrangement for water, electricity, and internet.
The property is a three-bedroom townhouse. One bedroom is located on the ground floor and is occupied by another tenant of the landlord. The two upstairs bedrooms and the garage are occupied by the applicant tenant.
At the commencement of the tenancy, a different property manager was acting on behalf of the agency, and it is unclear precisely how the utilities agreement was reached. However, both the current property manager and the tenant agree that there was an arrangement under which the landlord would pay $30.00 per week toward utilities. This amount was intended to cover electricity, water, and internet usage for the downstairs room occupied by the landlord’s other tenant.
The applicant asks the Tribunal to review this utilities arrangement and to determine whether compensation or exemplary damages are appropriate in relation to the alleged failure to maintain. Is the arrangement regarding the utilities consistent with the provisions of The

RTA?

The question arises whether there is anything improper in the utilities agreement.
Section 39(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a tenant is responsible for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to their occupation or use of the premises. In effect, the default position is that a tenant is only liable for charges that can be clearly attributed to them.
Where multiple tenancies share utilities, the usual and appropriate approach is either: a) for the landlord to include such costs within the rent and retain the utilities in their own name; or b) to install a check meter, enabling accurate apportionment of usage, with the landlord charging tenants based on verified consumption.
In this case, the parties adopted a third arrangement: the utilities are held in the tenant’s name, and the landlord contributes $30.00 per week to account for usage attributable to the downstairs occupant.
Section 11(3) of the Act provides that any agreement that purports to waive or limit a tenant’s rights is of no effect. It does not prevent the parties from negotiating terms of a tenancy but it does protect a tenant given the unbalanced power dynamics from foregoing their baseline entitlements under the act.
The validity of this arrangement therefore depends on whether it operates to the tenant’s advantage in that it is consistent with the intent of s39(3) or disadvantages them and exposes them to costs that are unlikely incurred by themselves.
If the $30.00 contribution is advantageous to the tenant, the agreement may stand. If it is disadvantageous, it would contravene section 11(3), be of no effect, and the landlord would be responsible for the utilities in their entirety.
In such circumstances, section 85(2) requires the Tribunal to determine the matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case.
The tenant’s evidence is that, at the commencement of the tenancy, they agreed to the $30.00 arrangement on the basis that only one person would occupy the downstairs room, being an employee of the landlord and that they agreed this was fair compensation.
I accept this evidence. The landlord’s conduct in making payments confirms that such an agreement existed and they do not dispute that. Furthermore, based on average usage observed in utility accounts that routinely come before the tribunal approximately $30.00 per week seems fair and reasonable compensation for utilities for one bedroom and one occupant.
The tenant’s concern is not with the existence of the arrangement itself, but with: a) the landlord’s sporadic payment of the agreed contribution; and b) the fact that the downstairs occupant has since been joined by a partner.
The parties appear content with the $30.00 weekly figure in principle. However, I accept that the agreement was made on the basis of a single occupant. A material change in occupancy alters the underlying basis of the agreement and engages section 11(3), such that any ambiguity must not operate to the tenant’s disadvantage.
Requiring the landlord at this stage to install check meters would introduce unnecessary complexity and uncertainty, and would not promote the fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute, consistent with section 85.
I therefore find that the original agreement, $30.00 per week for one occupant, was fair. However, any ambiguity arising from that agreement must be borne by the landlord.
Accordingly: a) I award $300.00 in compensation to address historical ambiguity in the arrangement which allowed for periods where the room was occupied by more than one tenant up to 1 May 2026; b) I order that the landlord pay $30.00 per week for any week where the room occupied by a single occupant from May 1 2026; c) I order that the amount increase to $45.00 per week for any week in which more than one person occupies that room from May 1 2026. d) For periods in which the room is vacant, the landlord remains liable to pay $30.00 per week.
In light of the landlord’s failure in the past year to make payments consistently, and the property manager’s refusal to administer the arrangement, I find it appropriate that: a) the tenant may deduct $30.00 or $45.00 (as applicable) from the rent; and
the property manager must record the landlords utility payment as a credit in the rent summary.
If the arrangement becomes impractical or unsatisfactory, the landlord may instead take the utilities into their own name and install check meters to comply with section 39(3).

Was there a failure to maintain?

Section 45(1) requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant has provided evidence that, shortly after the commencement of the tenancy (14 April 2025), they raised multiple maintenance issues, including the doorbell, garage remote, air conditioning remote, letterbox, alarm, balcony doors, towel rail, a kitchen leak, and various internal doors.
The tenant followed up on 28 April, and again in May and June. These issues were largely not addressed. At one point, the landlord’s downstairs occupant undertook minor repairs. In July, the tenant arranged for a handyman to repair the kitchen leak and one of the doors at their own expense which the landlord later reimbursed.
Many remaining issues were only addressed in October 2025, after a new property manager took over, with some not resolved until 10 February 2026.
The landlord does not materially dispute this evidence, attributing the delay to communication failures involving the previous property manager.
I find that numerous maintenance issues, albeit relatively minor, remained unresolved for an extended period of up to ten months. This reflects both a failure to respond and poor management of repairs.
A breach of section 45 is an unlawful act under section 45(1A). I am satisfied that the breach was intentional, as evidenced by the prolonged inaction and communications indicating awareness of the issues without timely resolution.
I accept that the cumulative effect of these failures impacted the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises. However, I also take into account that the individual issues were largely minor in nature.
The maximum exemplary damages available for this breach are $7,200. In the circumstances, an award at the lower end is appropriate.
Accordingly, I award exemplary damages of $1,500.00. The filing fee and suppression:
Because the applicant has been successful I have awarded the filing fee and suppressed their details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5428030 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 243 Mount Albert Road, Wesley, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5428030 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 243 Mount Albert Road, Wesley, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RTA?

Was there a failure to maintain?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RTA?

Was there a failure to maintain?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions