What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5524610 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares the tenant is not liable to pay all or any part of the landlord’s

How much money was awarded in case 5524610?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5524610?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5524610?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14036522-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5524610 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares the tenant is not liable to pay all or any part of the landlord’s

How much money was awarded in case 5524610?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5524610?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5524610?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14036522-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 Mandival Avenue, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5524610 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal declares the tenant is not liable to pay all or any part of the landlord’s fixed fee with SolarZero.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 August 2026. The landlord was represented by Jacqui Cotton who is the current property manager for the tenancy.
Ms Cotton gave evidence that the landlord entered into a 20 year contract with SolarZero for the installation of solar panels at the premises. The landlord pays SolarZero a monthly fee of $95.00 plus GST ($109.25 total) as part of the contract. Ms Cotton is unsure whether the fee is for the hire of solar panels only or part of a financing agreement, whereby the landlord pays the cost of the solar panels off over time.
The tenant has an electricity account with Ecotricity NZ. Ecotricity NZ acts as a retail link between renewable power generators and electricity consumers across New Zealand. While SolarZero provides the solar panels and battery storage subscription, it is not an electricity retailer. The two companies work closely together to manage household energy needs.
Ms Cotton claims the tenant is responsible for paying all or a portion of the fixed SolarZero fee. This is because Ms Cotton claims the tenant benefits from the provision of solar power to the premises by way of lower electricity bills.
The tenant claims they should not have to pay any portion of the fixed fee. The law
Section 39(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that 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 use of the facilities. Analysis
I find the fixed fee paid by the landlord to SolarZero is not exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or use of the facilities. This is because it is a fee the landlord must pay regardless of whether the tenant uses solar power at the premises or not. The fact that the tenant benefits from the provision of solar power to the premises does not mean the landlord can pass the fee, or any portion of it, onto the tenant. Tenants benefit from the provision of water to the premises however, this does not enable a landlord to pass on the fixed wastewater fee that Watercare charges to the tenant. Similarly, tenants benefit from services local councils provide to the premises such as, rubbish collection. This does not allow the landlord to pass on the rates bill that the Council charges to the tenant.
In Gagan Deep Singh Sandhu v A1 Rentals Limited as agent for A Zou [2024] NZTT 4927394, 4954974, the landlord tried to charge the tenant part of the fixed- line charge that the electricity provider charged. This was a case where the landlord lived next door to the tenancy address. The tenancy address did not have its own water or electricity account. The electricity account was in the landlord’s name and electricity was provided to the landlord’s house and the tenancy address. The Tribunal held that the landlord was not able to pass on the cost of the fixed line charge to the tenant, because it was not a charge that was exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or use of the facilities. The landlord would have had to pay the fixed line charge regardless of whether the tenant occupied the premises or not.
The current case is similar to Gagan Deep Singh Sandhu v A1 Rentals Limited as agent for A Zou [2024] NZTT 4927394, 4954974. This is because the landlord will need to pay the fixed fee to SolarZero regardless of whether the tenant occupies the premises or uses solar power.
For all of these reasons, I find the fixed fee paid by the landlord to SolarZero is not exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or use of the facilities. Therefore, the tenant is not liable to pay any portion of it.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful with the application. Therefore, I do not order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 August 2026. The landlord was represented by Jacqui Cotton who is the current property manager for the tenancy.

Ms Cotton gave evidence that the landlord entered into a 20 year contract with SolarZero for the installation of solar panels at the premises. The landlord pays SolarZero a monthly fee of $95.00 plus GST ($109.25 total) as part of the contract. Ms Cotton is unsure whether the fee is for the hire of solar panels only or part of a financing agreement, whereby the landlord pays the cost of the solar panels off over time.

The tenant has an electricity account with Ecotricity NZ. Ecotricity NZ acts as a retail link between renewable power generators and electricity consumers across New Zealand. While SolarZero provides the solar panels and battery storage subscription, it is not an electricity retailer. The two companies work closely together to manage household energy needs.

Ms Cotton claims the tenant is responsible for paying all or a portion of the fixed SolarZero fee. This is because Ms Cotton claims the tenant benefits from the provision of solar power to the premises by way of lower electricity bills.

The tenant claims they should not have to pay any portion of the fixed fee. The law

Section 39(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that 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 use of the facilities. Analysis

I find the fixed fee paid by the landlord to SolarZero is not exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or use of the facilities. This is because it is a fee the landlord must pay regardless of whether the tenant uses solar power at the premises or not. The fact that the tenant benefits from the provision of solar power to the premises does not mean the landlord can pass the fee, or any portion of it, onto the tenant. Tenants benefit from the provision of water to the premises however, this does not enable a landlord to pass on the fixed wastewater fee that Watercare charges to the tenant. Similarly, tenants benefit from services local councils provide to the premises such as, rubbish collection. This does not allow the landlord to pass on the rates bill that the Council charges to the tenant.

In Gagan Deep Singh Sandhu v A1 Rentals Limited as agent for A Zou [2024] NZTT 4927394, 4954974, the landlord tried to charge the tenant part of the fixed- line charge that the electricity provider charged. This was a case where the landlord lived next door to the tenancy address. The tenancy address did not have its own water or electricity account. The electricity account was in the landlord’s name and electricity was provided to the landlord’s house and the tenancy address. The Tribunal held that the landlord was not able to pass on the cost of the fixed line charge to the tenant, because it was not a charge that was exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or use of the facilities. The landlord would have had to pay the fixed line charge regardless of whether the tenant occupied the premises or not.

The current case is similar to Gagan Deep Singh Sandhu v A1 Rentals Limited as agent for A Zou [2024] NZTT 4927394, 4954974. This is because the landlord will need to pay the fixed fee to SolarZero regardless of whether the tenant occupies the premises or uses solar power.

For all of these reasons, I find the fixed fee paid by the landlord to SolarZero is not exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or use of the facilities. Therefore, the tenant is not liable to pay any portion of it.

The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful with the application. Therefore, I do not order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5524610 — Tenancy dispute at 1 Mandival Avenue, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5524610 — Tenancy dispute at 1 Mandival Avenue, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.