What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5488271 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 5488271?

Compensation: failure to maintain HR…: $440.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: for additional lawn mo…: $420.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5488271?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5488271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13874981-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5488271 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 5488271?

Compensation: failure to maintain HR…: $440.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: for additional lawn mo…: $420.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5488271?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5488271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13874981-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

18 Konini Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5488271 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5488271 — net $888.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to maintain HRV system	$440.00	failure to maintain HRV system
Compensation: for additional lawn mowing	$420.00	for additional lawn mowing
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$888.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$888.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Golden Spring Group Limited As Agent For Zigang Yu must pay [The tenant/s] $888.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Han and Ms Huo represented the landlord.
This tenancy began on 26 April 2025. The property is a large four-bedroom home set on a very large, 6273m 2 section. Rent is $950 per week.
When the tenancy began the landlord was in the process of obtaining consent for a two-bedroom property that was also located on the section (which appears to have originally been a sleep-out). For ease of reference, I refer to the two- bedroom property in this decision as “the smaller tenancy”.
New tenants moved into the smaller tenancy in September 2025.
The tenants filed a claim on 14 April 2026 seeking compensation for the following issues: a. They were paying the electricity bill for the entire property and being reimbursed for the portion used by the smaller tenancy, but those payments were often made late, causing them financial stress; b. They were originally mowing the lawns for the entire property, and were unable to reach agreement with the landlord regarding this arrangement and appropriate compensation once the smaller tenancy began; and c. The HRV system at the property did not work and was not repaired until February 2026. Electricity
The tenants said that when they moved into the tenancy they arranged their own electricity account, and chose a provider that billed them weekly and also included internet services.
There were no issues until the tenants moved into the smaller tenancy. However from that point the tenants found themselves responsible for the electricity used by both tenancies, and although they were reimbursed for the portion used by the smaller tenancy, this reimbursement was often a day late (or in one case three weeks late as the other tenants were away and could not take and send photographs to the landlord of the check-meter installed at the property).
The tenants said that the situation caused financial issues for them as they had to budget to be able to pay the entire electricity bill for both tenancies, so that they could pay the invoice on time, before being reimbursed.
The tenants were told that it was not possible for two meters to be installed, but said that when they contacted Vector for confirmation, they were advised that no such application had been made.
The landlord said that the check-meter was originally installed in this tenancy but that, at the request of the tenants they moved the check-meter to the smaller tenancy. The landlord said that, as the tenants had an account with a free power hour, they were careful to calculate usage in favour of the tenants, which meant that the landlord ended up paying for some of the bill themselves.
The landlord said that the delay was usually only one day, due to the logistics involved, and that the on the one occasion where there was a three-week delay, this was due to the tenants in the smaller tenancy being away.
The landlord said that they offered to open a new electricity account in the landlord’s name but the tenants were concerned that this might affect their free power hour and internet services.
Section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that tenants are responsible for all outgoings in respect of premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenants’ occupation of the premises or their use of the facilities (including electricity and gas, telephone and internet and the supply of water).
Because the tenants in this tenancy had an existing power account, and the smaller tenancy started some months later, the tenants have ended up being responsible for the electricity use of the other tenants (not just their own use), even through they were later reimbursed.
The landlord did offer to rectify the situation by offering to open an electricity account in the landlord’s name, and then invoice each of the tenant’s usage, but I accept that the tenants had legitimate concerns about how this might then affect them.
In my view the landlord, who knew that there would be a second tenancy on the property at some stage, should have made these arrangements at the outset, so the tenants were not put in the position of having to pay for the electricity for the smaller tenancy and wait for reimbursement.
The tenants have not suffered loss as I accept that the landlord reimbursed the tenants. The tenants brought this claim as they were seeking a solution, however I was informed at the hearing that the tenants have given notice and will be moving out on 18 July 2026.
In the circumstances I make no orders in respect of the electricity invoicing, and have simply recorded the factual and legal position above. Lawns
The tenants said that they agreed to mow the lawns, which were very extensive including the area around their house, the smaller tenancy and the shared driveway, but that it was always understood that the arrangement would change when tenants moved into the smaller tenancy.
The tenants produced aerial photos showing the size of the various areas that they had to mow.
The tenants explained that when the new tenants moved in they continued to mow the entire property but eventually stopped as they were not being compensated for doing so, and also felt that they might be invading the privacy of the tenants in the smaller tenancy by mowing right next to their house.
The tenants said that they tried to negotiate with the landlord for compensation but could not reach agreement. They said that the landlord initially offered compensation of $10 every three weeks, and then changed their offer to $10 per week and paid them $250.00 on 20 March 2026 being compensation of $10 per week for 25 weeks) even through they had not agreed to that.
The tenants said that the entire property was so large that they obtained quotes to mow the entire area between $206.00 and $350.00. They produced copies of the quotes. They said that the landlord paid $40.00 to a contractor to pay the small amount of grass around the smaller tenancy, but made no allowance for a contribution from the smaller tenancy to the long shared driveway, which these tenants were left to mow without contribution, together with the shared grass area.
The landlord agreed that the lawn maintenance responsibilities would change once tenants moved into the smaller tenancy. The landlord said that they in fact paid a contractor $35.00 to mow the area around the smaller tenancy, who mowed every three weeks, and so they thought it was fair to compensate the tenants $10.00 per week for the period that they mowed this area (approximately $30.00 per mow).
It is clear from the correspondence however that the tenants did not agree with the compensation paid.
I am unable to resolve the difference in evidence as to what the contractor was paid ($35.00 or $40.00) but I consider the amount paid to the tenants for mowing this area to be reasonable, as it equates to roughly what the landlord was paying the contractor on a 3 week basis.
However I agree with the tenants that the landlord should also have been contributing to the mowing of the shared areas, which include the long driveway and shared common area, from the date that the new tenants moved in until the end of the tenancy.
In my view landlord should have made a clear arrangement at the outset so that the tenants were not left mowing the entire property while trying to negotiate compensation once tenants moved into the smaller property.
Having reviewed the aerial photos and the quotes obtained by the tenants I consider that the driveway area and (and shared area by the smaller tenancy) would likely cost approximately $120.00 to mow. Both the tenants and the landlord agreed that mowing was necessary every three weeks. So, the cost of the driveway shared area would have been approximately $40.00 per week. Based on the relative size of each tenancy, I consider that it would be appropriate for the smaller tenancy to bear the cost of ¼ of that amount ($10.00 per week).
The tenants mowed the driveway for 40 (calculated to today’s date) after the tenants moved into the smaller tenancy. As the tenancy ends in approximately two weeks I have added two additional weeks of compensation, so that total compensation for the lawnmowing is $420.00. HRV system
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the tenancy property in a reasonable state of repair. Once advised of the need for repairs, the landlord must act to complete the repairs within a reasonable time frame.
The tenants said that the property was advertised as having an HRV system and that it was an important feature of the property as they have five young children and wanted to ensure that the property was well ventilated and free from mould.
They said that the HRV didn’t work, and correspondence between the parties suggests that it malfunctioned.
The tenants produced various text communication with the landlord in which they requested that the HRV be repaired, including following up and checking with the landlord about what was happening.
The tenants said that they did not have the use of the HRV for 44 weeks (from the start of the tenancy until 26 February 2026 and that they had to run dehumidifiers instead, leading to increased power costs, and seek compensation in the amount of $10 per week for this period.
The landlord said that the HRV was not included in the chattels list and so the landlord was under no obligation to repair it, and an HRV was not needed in the summer months, as the tenants could just open the windows.
The landlord said that the owner had wanted to remove the HRV due to the cost of repair (approximately $3,000) but ultimately had the HRV repaired as the tenants insisted that it had been advertised as part of the property.
Having reviewed all of the correspondence I consider that the landlord has breached their maintenance obligations and the tenants are entitled to compensation for the period during which the HRV was not working because: a. The tenants noticed that the property had an HRV system when they viewed the property; b. The tenants were not told prior to the start of the tenancy that the HRV was faulty, and so were entitled to assume that the HRV was working; c. Neither party could produce a copy of the advertisement for the tenancy property, but I note that the tenants sent a message to the landlord on 12 January 2026 stating: “In terms of the HRV system: the property was advertised as having an HRV system. Since moving in, it has not been working, and I have followed this up with you three times now with no resolution. Given it was advertised as a feature of the home, we expect this to be either repaired for appropriate reimbursement to be discussed for the period it has not been functional” d. The landlord did not then dispute that the property had been advertised with an HRV system; e. The tenant contacted the landlord about the HRV when they moved in, and again by email on 15 May 2025, 13 December 2025, 12 January 2026; f. The landlord’s correspondence indicates that the landlord was in the process of arranging repairs; g. The repairs were not done in a timely manner, and ultimately took approximately 14 months; h. The tenants did not have the use of the HRV for most of the tenancy and had to rely on dehumidifiers which were expensive and not as effective.
I consider the amount claimed by the tenants to be reasonable in the context of this $950 per week tenancy.
I award compensation of $10 per week over the 44 week period that the tenants did not have the HRV system ($440). Filing fee and name suppression
The tenants have been the substantially successful party and so I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties sought an order for name suppression. As the tenants have been the substantially successful party they are entitled to an order pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5488271 — net $888.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to maintain HRV system	$440.00	failure to maintain HRV system
Compensation: for additional lawn mowing	$420.00	for additional lawn mowing
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$888.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$888.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Golden Spring Group Limited As Agent For Zigang Yu must pay [The tenant/s] $888.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Han and Ms Huo represented the landlord.
This tenancy began on 26 April 2025. The property is a large four-bedroom home set on a very large, 6273m 2 section. Rent is $950 per week.
When the tenancy began the landlord was in the process of obtaining consent for a two-bedroom property that was also located on the section (which appears to have originally been a sleep-out). For ease of reference, I refer to the two- bedroom property in this decision as “the smaller tenancy”.
New tenants moved into the smaller tenancy in September 2025.
The tenants filed a claim on 14 April 2026 seeking compensation for the following issues: a. They were paying the electricity bill for the entire property and being reimbursed for the portion used by the smaller tenancy, but those payments were often made late, causing them financial stress; b. They were originally mowing the lawns for the entire property, and were unable to reach agreement with the landlord regarding this arrangement and appropriate compensation once the smaller tenancy began; and c. The HRV system at the property did not work and was not repaired until February 2026. Electricity
The tenants said that when they moved into the tenancy they arranged their own electricity account, and chose a provider that billed them weekly and also included internet services.
There were no issues until the tenants moved into the smaller tenancy. However from that point the tenants found themselves responsible for the electricity used by both tenancies, and although they were reimbursed for the portion used by the smaller tenancy, this reimbursement was often a day late (or in one case three weeks late as the other tenants were away and could not take and send photographs to the landlord of the check-meter installed at the property).
The tenants said that the situation caused financial issues for them as they had to budget to be able to pay the entire electricity bill for both tenancies, so that they could pay the invoice on time, before being reimbursed.
The tenants were told that it was not possible for two meters to be installed, but said that when they contacted Vector for confirmation, they were advised that no such application had been made.
The landlord said that the check-meter was originally installed in this tenancy but that, at the request of the tenants they moved the check-meter to the smaller tenancy. The landlord said that, as the tenants had an account with a free power hour, they were careful to calculate usage in favour of the tenants, which meant that the landlord ended up paying for some of the bill themselves.
The landlord said that the delay was usually only one day, due to the logistics involved, and that the on the one occasion where there was a three-week delay, this was due to the tenants in the smaller tenancy being away.
The landlord said that they offered to open a new electricity account in the landlord’s name but the tenants were concerned that this might affect their free power hour and internet services.
Section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that tenants are responsible for all outgoings in respect of premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenants’ occupation of the premises or their use of the facilities (including electricity and gas, telephone and internet and the supply of water).
Because the tenants in this tenancy had an existing power account, and the smaller tenancy started some months later, the tenants have ended up being responsible for the electricity use of the other tenants (not just their own use), even through they were later reimbursed.
The landlord did offer to rectify the situation by offering to open an electricity account in the landlord’s name, and then invoice each of the tenant’s usage, but I accept that the tenants had legitimate concerns about how this might then affect them.
In my view the landlord, who knew that there would be a second tenancy on the property at some stage, should have made these arrangements at the outset, so the tenants were not put in the position of having to pay for the electricity for the smaller tenancy and wait for reimbursement.
The tenants have not suffered loss as I accept that the landlord reimbursed the tenants. The tenants brought this claim as they were seeking a solution, however I was informed at the hearing that the tenants have given notice and will be moving out on 18 July 2026.
In the circumstances I make no orders in respect of the electricity invoicing, and have simply recorded the factual and legal position above. Lawns
The tenants said that they agreed to mow the lawns, which were very extensive including the area around their house, the smaller tenancy and the shared driveway, but that it was always understood that the arrangement would change when tenants moved into the smaller tenancy.
The tenants produced aerial photos showing the size of the various areas that they had to mow.
The tenants explained that when the new tenants moved in they continued to mow the entire property but eventually stopped as they were not being compensated for doing so, and also felt that they might be invading the privacy of the tenants in the smaller tenancy by mowing right next to their house.
The tenants said that they tried to negotiate with the landlord for compensation but could not reach agreement. They said that the landlord initially offered compensation of $10 every three weeks, and then changed their offer to $10 per week and paid them $250.00 on 20 March 2026 being compensation of $10 per week for 25 weeks) even through they had not agreed to that.
The tenants said that the entire property was so large that they obtained quotes to mow the entire area between $206.00 and $350.00. They produced copies of the quotes. They said that the landlord paid $40.00 to a contractor to pay the small amount of grass around the smaller tenancy, but made no allowance for a contribution from the smaller tenancy to the long shared driveway, which these tenants were left to mow without contribution, together with the shared grass area.
The landlord agreed that the lawn maintenance responsibilities would change once tenants moved into the smaller tenancy. The landlord said that they in fact paid a contractor $35.00 to mow the area around the smaller tenancy, who mowed every three weeks, and so they thought it was fair to compensate the tenants $10.00 per week for the period that they mowed this area (approximately $30.00 per mow).
It is clear from the correspondence however that the tenants did not agree with the compensation paid.
I am unable to resolve the difference in evidence as to what the contractor was paid ($35.00 or $40.00) but I consider the amount paid to the tenants for mowing this area to be reasonable, as it equates to roughly what the landlord was paying the contractor on a 3 week basis.
However I agree with the tenants that the landlord should also have been contributing to the mowing of the shared areas, which include the long driveway and shared common area, from the date that the new tenants moved in until the end of the tenancy.
In my view landlord should have made a clear arrangement at the outset so that the tenants were not left mowing the entire property while trying to negotiate compensation once tenants moved into the smaller property.
Having reviewed the aerial photos and the quotes obtained by the tenants I consider that the driveway area and (and shared area by the smaller tenancy) would likely cost approximately $120.00 to mow. Both the tenants and the landlord agreed that mowing was necessary every three weeks. So, the cost of the driveway shared area would have been approximately $40.00 per week. Based on the relative size of each tenancy, I consider that it would be appropriate for the smaller tenancy to bear the cost of ¼ of that amount ($10.00 per week).
The tenants mowed the driveway for 40 (calculated to today’s date) after the tenants moved into the smaller tenancy. As the tenancy ends in approximately two weeks I have added two additional weeks of compensation, so that total compensation for the lawnmowing is $420.00. HRV system
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the tenancy property in a reasonable state of repair. Once advised of the need for repairs, the landlord must act to complete the repairs within a reasonable time frame.
The tenants said that the property was advertised as having an HRV system and that it was an important feature of the property as they have five young children and wanted to ensure that the property was well ventilated and free from mould.
They said that the HRV didn’t work, and correspondence between the parties suggests that it malfunctioned.
The tenants produced various text communication with the landlord in which they requested that the HRV be repaired, including following up and checking with the landlord about what was happening.
The tenants said that they did not have the use of the HRV for 44 weeks (from the start of the tenancy until 26 February 2026 and that they had to run dehumidifiers instead, leading to increased power costs, and seek compensation in the amount of $10 per week for this period.
The landlord said that the HRV was not included in the chattels list and so the landlord was under no obligation to repair it, and an HRV was not needed in the summer months, as the tenants could just open the windows.
The landlord said that the owner had wanted to remove the HRV due to the cost of repair (approximately $3,000) but ultimately had the HRV repaired as the tenants insisted that it had been advertised as part of the property.
Having reviewed all of the correspondence I consider that the landlord has breached their maintenance obligations and the tenants are entitled to compensation for the period during which the HRV was not working because: a. The tenants noticed that the property had an HRV system when they viewed the property; b. The tenants were not told prior to the start of the tenancy that the HRV was faulty, and so were entitled to assume that the HRV was working; c. Neither party could produce a copy of the advertisement for the tenancy property, but I note that the tenants sent a message to the landlord on 12 January 2026 stating: “In terms of the HRV system: the property was advertised as having an HRV system. Since moving in, it has not been working, and I have followed this up with you three times now with no resolution. Given it was advertised as a feature of the home, we expect this to be either repaired for appropriate reimbursement to be discussed for the period it has not been functional” d. The landlord did not then dispute that the property had been advertised with an HRV system; e. The tenant contacted the landlord about the HRV when they moved in, and again by email on 15 May 2025, 13 December 2025, 12 January 2026; f. The landlord’s correspondence indicates that the landlord was in the process of arranging repairs; g. The repairs were not done in a timely manner, and ultimately took approximately 14 months; h. The tenants did not have the use of the HRV for most of the tenancy and had to rely on dehumidifiers which were expensive and not as effective.
I consider the amount claimed by the tenants to be reasonable in the context of this $950 per week tenancy.
I award compensation of $10 per week over the 44 week period that the tenants did not have the HRV system ($440). Filing fee and name suppression
The tenants have been the substantially successful party and so I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties sought an order for name suppression. As the tenants have been the substantially successful party they are entitled to an order pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5488271 — State of repair at 18 Konini Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5488271 — State of repair at 18 Konini Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions