What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4892009?

The tribunal order states: Colin Le Quesne must pay Gareth Richards $2,419.31 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4892009?

Compensation for breach of section 3…: $2,419.31 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4892009?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4892009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12147779-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4892009?

The tribunal order states: Colin Le Quesne must pay Gareth Richards $2,419.31 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4892009?

Compensation for breach of section 3…: $2,419.31 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4892009?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4892009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12147779-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

36A Awatea Road, Parnell, Auckland 1052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4892009 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4892009 — net $2,419.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for breach of section 39: Reimbursement of utility charges	$2,419.31	Compensation for breach of section 39: Reimbursement of utility charges
Net award	$2,419.31
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,419.31

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4892009 — net $2,419.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for breach of section 39: Reimbursement of utility charges	$2,419.31	Compensation for breach of section 39: Reimbursement of utility charges
Net award	$2,419.31
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,419.31

Order

Colin Le Quesne must pay Gareth Richards $2,419.31 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 (5917139-004) to Gareth Richards immediately.
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

This decision concerns an application filed by Mr Richards (the tenant) seeking reimbursement for utility charges, exemplary damages, and compensation for stress and inconvenience arising from the administration of his tenancy.
A hearing was held on 13 May 2025. The tenant attended. Representatives for Asset Property Care Limited trading as Ray White Asset Rentals (Asset Rentals) attended as agent for the owner, Mr Colin Le Quesne. No representatives appeared for Haven Living Management Ltd trading as Walker Weir Property Management (Walker Weir).
The matter was adjourned to allow Asset Rentals to engage a suitably qualified person to inspect the sub-meters at the premises and provide a written report confirming whether the sub-meters at the premises were functioning correctly and accurately calculating utility usage. The report was subsequently filed and considered as part of this decision.
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not, correct.
The Tribunal has considered all evidence and submissions provided, including oral evidence presented at the hearing. While the tenant raised a number of grievances regarding the conduct of the property managers, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the landlord or their agents have breached obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and whether any remedy should be awarded. Background
The tenancy commenced in March 2019 and ended on 29 July 2024. Rent was $525 per week at the start and later increased to $565 per week. The tenant occupied a one-bedroom flat within a larger dwelling shared with other occupants.
The property was initially managed by Walker Weir until April 2022, after which Asset Rentals took over. The owner resides overseas but is ultimately liable for the acts and omissions of both property management companies under the RTA.
The property lacked separate ICP lines for utilities. The tenant was billed for electricity, gas, and water using submeter readings and proportional allocation. The tenant claims this system was flawed, leading to unlawful charges, significant over- allocation, invoicing delays, and stress.
The tenant claims $23,677.23 comprising: •$9,677.23 reimbursement for utility charges, arguing they were based on inaccurate submeter readings and an unfair allocation system. •$14,000 exemplary damages and compensation ($7,000 against each property management company) for systemic invoicing failures, stress, and time spent addressing billing disputes. •A bond refund of $1,980, which remains on hold pending this dispute. Tenant’s position
The tenant says: •The utility charging system was flawed from the outset. Submeters were not exclusively calculating his use, resulting in inflated allocations. •Gas charges from 2019 to early 2022 were invoiced for the entire property, including fixed components. •Submeter allocations for water and electricity were disproportionate. He provided comparative calculations using provider invoices and sample usage from a similar household to show gross disproportionality. •The water submeter attributed 38%–48% of total water consumption to the tenant despite five occupants. •In terms of the electricity submeter, the tenant occupied 16.8% of floor area but was charged for approximately 46.85% of usage. •His evidence suggests he paid nearly 75% of total property utilities, despite occupying only 16.8% of the floor area and despite there being five occupants. •Invoicing was erratic and delayed—sometimes over 172 days between invoices instead of 90 days as initially agreed, creating significant hardship and preventing any meaningful opportunity to dispute charges. •Attempts to clarify charges were met with confusion by both property management companies. The tenant says his concerns were often dismissed and caused years of stress and financial hardship, contributing to his decision to vacate despite an otherwise harmonious tenancy. •The application of GST by Asset Rentals was inconsistent and likely incorrect, given the intermediary billing arrangements. •He claims the poor administration by the property management companies and failure to comply with legislative requirements breached his quiet enjoyment of the premises. •He sought exemplary damages for systemic failures and compensation for “years of unnecessary hardship.” Landlord’s position
The landlord (through Asset Rentals) says: •Submeters were in place and were considered reliable. Allocations were based on actual readings where possible. •The landlord relied on property managers to administer utilities and had no direct involvement in calculations. •While acknowledging delays in invoicing, the landlord disputes that this amounts to a breach warranting compensation. •The electrician’s report from Stella Electricals confirms the tenant’s unit was electrically separate from the main dwelling, disputing claims of combined power use. •The landlord accepts the tenant may have felt frustrated but denies liability for exemplary damages. They argue the tenant benefited from below-market rent for a significant portion of the tenancy. •Regarding GST, the landlord maintains it was charged in line with their business obligations, though no detailed GST reconciliation was produced at the hearing. Relevant law
Section 39(3) RTA: A landlord is permitted to require a tenant to pay for electricity, gas, water, or other services provided to the premises only if the charges are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s use of the premises. If outgoings cannot be shown to be exclusively attributable, the cost remains with the landlord (section 39(1)).
The Tribunal considered the issue of a failure to correctly calculate use in Parangi v Zanitech [2021] NZTT Kaitaia 4287072. In that case there was no meter available to calculate the tenants use. The Tribunal said that “the difficulty for Mr Zanitech is that there is no meter on the tenanted premises and therefore no means to calculate the power use that is exclusively attributable to the tenants occupation of the premises.”
In Geraghty v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813, the District Court held that in considering whether to require the tenant to pay for outgoings when there is no means for calculating the tenant’s actual consumption the Tenancy Tribunal must have regard to section 85 RTA.
Section 85(2) RTA: The Tribunal must determine disputes according to the substantial merits and justice of the case.
Section 38 RTA: A landlord is obliged not to interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant. A significant breach amounting to harassment constitutes an unlawful act under section 38(3).
Section 77(2)(n) RTA: The Tribunal may award compensation where appropriate and to fix amounts in a global way taking into account what it considers fair and reasonable; Farmer v Orlenski DC Auckland CIV-2012-004-000358, 28 March 2013.
Exemplary damages: Only available where a breach amounts to an unlawful act specified in the RTA (section 109). There is no provision for exemplary damages under section 39.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction does not extend to general complaints about service quality or professional standards, except insofar as they involve breaches of statutory obligations under the RTA. Analysis Jurisdiction over Walker Weir
Walker Weir entered liquidation on 13 March 2025, as confirmed by the Companies Office. Under section 248 Companies Act 1993, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate claims against a company in liquidation without leave of the Court or consent of the liquidator. Neither exists here.
All claims against Walker Weir are struck out for lack of jurisdiction. Disproportionate charges
Section 39 strictly limits recovery to charges “exclusively attributable” to the tenant’s use. Precedent has been directive that amounts tenants are required to pay under section 39 must be clear and exact. Recent decisions by the Tribunal have taken a very strong position where a landlord has failed to correctly attribute outgoings.
The tenant provided detailed evidence comparing allocated usage with the total property consumption and a similar household benchmark.
The evidence shows that for much of the tenancy, utilities were measured using submeters, but there is credible evidence from the tenant that these meters may not have reflected exclusive use. For example, water allocation attributed 38–48% of total household use to the tenant, despite there being five occupants. Similarly, electricity charges far exceeded the tenant’s proportion of floor space (16.8%) compared to total usage.
While precise figures cannot be verified due to gaps in records, the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant has shown, on the balance of probabilities, that allocations were unfairly high and not exclusively attributable.
The landlord provided evidence from Stella Electricals. In their email of 4 June 2025, Stella Electrical stated: This email is intended to inform you that a/36 Awatea Road and 36 Awatea road are electrically separate. I have performed testing on both installations to prove to you that they are separate. I began by shutting off the circuit breaker that supply's a/36 Awateas check meter. I then began testing all gpos and light switches for power and found nothing to be live. I then proceeded to test all of 36 Awatea's gpos and light switches and found everything to still be live. With this being said there is no mix up of cables feeding either property incorrectly.
The evidence provided by the landlord confirms separate mains between dwellings, but it does not resolve the internal allocation problem. Nor am I satisfied the landlord has justified the extent and method of assigning costs to the tenant. The landlord has not discharged the burden of showing correct attribution. Under section 39(1), the landlord bears liability for non-exclusive outgoings. Failure to provide timely invoices
If, as in this case, the utilities are shared between the tenant and other occupants in the main dwelling, and the landlord oversees the provision of the services, then there must be transparency. A tenant must be provided with the actual provider invoices and be able to clearly identify what is their usage.
The District Court has found there can be an implied term in a tenancy agreement for the landlord to provide accounts to the tenant at regular intervals so as to enable payment to be made (Woollams v Simpson CIV:2005-004-1583, Auckland, 16 March 2006). The Court found that where charges were rendered quarterly then the implication was the accounts would be presented to, and paid, quarterly by the tenant. The Court stated, at paragraph 13: Failure to do that has predictable consequences for any tenant and apparently did for this tenant. In my view, the implied term which I read into the Act and into this agreement is necessary in order to make the clause a workable one from a commercial point of view, and in order to decide this matter according to the substantial merits.
The case of Braganza v Saia (DC) CIV-2010-004-2024 is also relevant. In respect to the issue of a landlord's obligation to render water accounts promptly, the Judge held: It is plainly incumbent on a landlord to set out with clarity what it is that he claims is due, as and when it falls due, and, when it comes to water, to provide the bills to the tenant as they fall due, so that the tenant may make any challenge to the supplier that he thinks is appropriate and make arrangements for payment in a timely fashion. [Paragraph 15].
Further, the Judge noted that: If the tenant is to be asked to pay after the event with no opportunity to check the calculation, or to make provision for payment at the time, he is at a manifest disadvantage. It is down to the landlord to provide the detail as it falls due. [Paragraph 16].
The evidence shows systemic delay in invoicing, contrary to both the parties’ original agreement and legal expectations. As held in Woollams v Simpson and Braganza v Saia, landlords must provide invoices as charges fall due. Delays were unreasonable and caused hardship, undermining transparency. This weighs heavily in favour of ordering reimbursement. GST concerns
The tenant raised legitimate concerns about GST misapplication but was not proven. Although the Tribunal cannot conclusively determine GST compliance without Inland Revenue involvement, the landlord produced no clear accounting trail. This lack of clarity reflects poor administrative practice, further justifying a remedy. This claim fails. Exemplary damages
The tenant claims exemplary damages under section 39; however, there is no provision for exemplary damages for breaches of section 39. Nor does the conduct amount to harassment under section 38. While the tenant experienced frustration and inconvenience, this does not rise to the level of a significant interference with peace, comfort, or privacy envisaged by section 38(2). Other claims
The tenant seeks compensation for stress, time spent researching legislation, and general dissatisfaction. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to breaches of statutory and contractual obligations under the RTA. There is no jurisdiction to award compensation for time spent or to adjudicate on industry standards generally. These aspects fall outside the Tribunal’s mandate. Conclusion
The Tribunal acknowledges the tenant’s considerable effort and time over the years in trying to resolve these issues. The administrative failures by property management caused genuine frustration and financial uncertainty, undermining an otherwise positive tenancy. While the Tribunal cannot award damages for stress beyond statutory provisions, this context reinforces the fairness of a partial refund.
The findings are: a) The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to make any orders against Haven Living Management Ltd trading as Walker Weir Property Management due to liquidation (section 248 Companies Act 1993) b) The landlord, through its agents, breached section 39 RTA by requiring the tenant to pay for utilities not exclusively attributable to his use. c) The tenant seeks reimbursement of $9,677.23, including gas charges prior to May 2022 when no submeter existed. However, he benefited from utility use during the tenancy. The Tribunal cannot reasonably conclude that all charges were invalid, only that they were disproportionately high and invoiced without transparency. Applying section 85 (substantial merits and justice), the Tribunal considers 25% of the total amount paid for utilities ($9,677.23), equating to $2,419.31 as fair and proportionate. This acknowledges: • The incomplete evidence on precise amounts and therefore the impossibility of precise recalculation. • The tenant’s credible evidence of overcharging (significantly above average use). • The landlord’s systemic errors and failures across water, electricity and gas billing (ie. delays, lack of transparency, GST issues). • That the tenant did consume utilities and should bear some cost. d) The claim for exemplary damages and additional compensation is dismissed. e) The bond of $1,980 is to be refunded in full to the tenant immediately. The landlord has not filed any cross application for the bond. In any event, because of the Tribunal’s above finding, any outstanding utility invoices from Asset Rentals are disallowed. f) Under agency law and section 2 RTA, a landlord remains legally responsible for acts or omissions of their property managers. See Mumby & Agrenz v Gary Brown Ltd Ltd DC North Shore, CIV 2010-044-2067, 7 February 2011 and Hamouda v Gralin Property Management [2024] NZDC 16642. Given the circumstances, the order is made against the owner of the premises. Filing fee and suppression order
The Tribunal does not order the other party to reimburse the filing fee as the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with the claims.
The tenant did not seek a suppression order. There are no grounds to supress the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4892009 — Tenancy dispute at 36A Awatea Road, Parnell, Auckland 1052

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4892009 — Tenancy dispute at 36A Awatea Road, Parnell, Auckland 1052

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions