What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5001772?

The tribunal order states: Shannon Brown must pay Jade Property Management 2013 Limited $512.76

How much money was awarded in case 5001772?

Electricity: $1,420.15 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,285.61 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5001772?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5001772?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11230899-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5001772?

The tribunal order states: Shannon Brown must pay Jade Property Management 2013 Limited $512.76

How much money was awarded in case 5001772?

Electricity: $1,420.15 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,285.61 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5001772?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5001772?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11230899-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

137 Don Buck Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5001772 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5001772 — net $512.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electricity	$1,420.15	Electricity
Water rates	$1,285.61	Water rates
Repairs: carpet	$100.00	Repairs: carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$512.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$512.76

Order

Shannon Brown must pay Jade Property Management 2013 Limited $512.76 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 to Jade Property Management 2013 Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 19 February 2023 and ended 20 months later, on 22 October 2024 after a 28-day notice was given by the tenant.
The tenants rented the “main house”. Also on the property is a minor dwelling which was rented by different tenants. A “mini meter” was installed at the minor dwelling to record power and water use at the minor dwelling.
The tenants state that because of the way the landlord used the mini meter, there is no certainty over how much power and how much water can be attributed to their tenancy. The tenants believe the lack of certainty means they should not be liable for any water or electricity bills.
The landlord made calculations as to the tenant’s use of power and water, but the tenant disputed the accuracy of the calculations from the outset.
Regarding the power, the issue was that the landlord received the bill from the provider, a reading was then taken from the mini metre by the tenant of the minor dwelling (according to the tenants), this was deducted from the bill and the remainder was charged to the tenants.
The tenants say they never saw the actual bills, and they have no assurance of the accuracy of the minor dwelling-tenants’ or the landlord’s calculations.
At 3.40am on the day of the hearing, the landlord provided photographs of the mini metre readings to the tenant and uploaded them to the Tribunal file. The tenant stated she had not seen these photographs before. It appears to me that the records are incomplete in that there is not a photograph of the metre for each month of the tenancy.
During the hearing the landlord provided a table showing the total power charges and readings, and the power charges and readings for the mini metre for the duration of the tenancy. The total bill amounts to $7,969.35 from an average unit price of $0.2554/kwh. Calculated deductions for the mini metre total $2,513.65 which means the tenants’ liability according to the landlord is $5,455.70. The tenant stated she had not seen this table before the hearing.
The landlord stated that they sent bills to the tenant periodically but gave up for a time following disputes with the tenant, and also while the landlord was overseas.
The actual power bills were not brought to the Tribunal today.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, that is, on the balance of probabilities. Balance of probabilities means “more likely than not”. In reaching this standard the applicant may produce corroborating information including witnesses, written documents and photographs in support.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02; ...[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.
Section 39(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) states that tenants are 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.”
In Geraghty v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813, his Honour Judge de Ridder 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 of the RTA.
Section 85(2) of the RTA states: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give strict effect to legal rights or obligations or legal form or technicalities.
What this means in effect is, care should be taken that the tenant does not end up paying for power or water expenses that they have not incurred. However, it is reasonable that a tenant pays for their power and water, even if a landlord has failed to provide regular, absolutely accurate records and bills for power usage.
Therefore, where the landlord does not provide accurate records, calculations should err on the conservative side for the tenant.
In NZTT Kaitaia 4287072, the Tribunal applied the decision of Geraghty v Raui (as above) and applied a “common sense” approach of calculating the power bill based on an “average” usage by the tenants. See paragraphs 17 and 19.
The landlord’s calculations amount to a monthly bill of just under $275.00. There is no suggestion from the tenant that the landlord was dishonest or not trustworthy; the complaint is that the landlord was not sufficiently conscientious.
I consider a 10% discount in the tenant’s favour ample to cover for any potential inaccuracies by the landlord. Based on all the information before me today I consider $4,909.00 to be the most reasonable conservative estimate of the tenants’ power use over the duration of the tenancy. On the balance of probabilities, this amount is proved.
The landlord stated that during the tenancy the tenant made a payment of $441.85 towards the power bills, and further payment totalling $3,047.00 for combined utilities. When deducted from the $4909.00, the total is reduced to $1,420.15.
With regard to the water rates, the dispute again arose around the metering of the power and water that came through the mini metre installed by Watercare.
The water rates bill was sent each month to the tenant. The tenant was not prepared each month to pay the water bill and then attempt to get reimbursed by the tenants at the minor dwelling and from the landlord for the fixed costs. On top of this the tenant believed the mini metre was unlawful.
The landlord claims that they gave up trying to get money from the tenant because of the position that the tenant insisted on adopting.
By the end of the tenancy the landlord claims the tenant owed $1,285.61. Water rates invoices and calculations were supplied by the landlord in support of this amount, and the tenant did not take issue with any of this information.
I find the claim proved.

Is the tenant 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.
The landlord claims that during the tenancy an area of carpet about the size of a dinner plate beneath a condenser drier, was damaged beyond repair with mould and discolouring. The tenant accepts the damage occurred during the tenancy but disputes it was caused by the condenser drier.
The landlord produced photographs proving the damage and is claiming $800.00 insurance excess.
Because the damage occurred during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability, I find the claim proved.
The carpet was not new at the beginning of the tenancy, the tenancy lasted 20 months, and only a small area of the carpet has been damage. I do not consider it would be reasonable to replace the carpet in the whole room because of this very small area of damage. None the less I accept the landlord has suffered a loss, and the amount I order, which is a nominal amount, is to compensate the landlord for this loss.
The amount is proved.
The tenant did not pursue any other claims raised in her application.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with their claim, I order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5001772 — net $512.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electricity	$1,420.15	Electricity
Water rates	$1,285.61	Water rates
Repairs: carpet	$100.00	Repairs: carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$512.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$512.76

Order

Shannon Brown must pay Jade Property Management 2013 Limited $512.76 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 to Jade Property Management 2013 Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 19 February 2023 and ended 20 months later, on 22 October 2024 after a 28-day notice was given by the tenant.
The tenants rented the “main house”. Also on the property is a minor dwelling which was rented by different tenants. A “mini meter” was installed at the minor dwelling to record power and water use at the minor dwelling.
The tenants state that because of the way the landlord used the mini meter, there is no certainty over how much power and how much water can be attributed to their tenancy. The tenants believe the lack of certainty means they should not be liable for any water or electricity bills.
The landlord made calculations as to the tenant’s use of power and water, but the tenant disputed the accuracy of the calculations from the outset.
Regarding the power, the issue was that the landlord received the bill from the provider, a reading was then taken from the mini metre by the tenant of the minor dwelling (according to the tenants), this was deducted from the bill and the remainder was charged to the tenants.
The tenants say they never saw the actual bills, and they have no assurance of the accuracy of the minor dwelling-tenants’ or the landlord’s calculations.
At 3.40am on the day of the hearing, the landlord provided photographs of the mini metre readings to the tenant and uploaded them to the Tribunal file. The tenant stated she had not seen these photographs before. It appears to me that the records are incomplete in that there is not a photograph of the metre for each month of the tenancy.
During the hearing the landlord provided a table showing the total power charges and readings, and the power charges and readings for the mini metre for the duration of the tenancy. The total bill amounts to $7,969.35 from an average unit price of $0.2554/kwh. Calculated deductions for the mini metre total $2,513.65 which means the tenants’ liability according to the landlord is $5,455.70. The tenant stated she had not seen this table before the hearing.
The landlord stated that they sent bills to the tenant periodically but gave up for a time following disputes with the tenant, and also while the landlord was overseas.
The actual power bills were not brought to the Tribunal today.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, that is, on the balance of probabilities. Balance of probabilities means “more likely than not”. In reaching this standard the applicant may produce corroborating information including witnesses, written documents and photographs in support.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02; ...[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.
Section 39(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) states that tenants are 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.”
In Geraghty v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813, his Honour Judge de Ridder 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 of the RTA.
Section 85(2) of the RTA states: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give strict effect to legal rights or obligations or legal form or technicalities.
What this means in effect is, care should be taken that the tenant does not end up paying for power or water expenses that they have not incurred. However, it is reasonable that a tenant pays for their power and water, even if a landlord has failed to provide regular, absolutely accurate records and bills for power usage.
Therefore, where the landlord does not provide accurate records, calculations should err on the conservative side for the tenant.
In NZTT Kaitaia 4287072, the Tribunal applied the decision of Geraghty v Raui (as above) and applied a “common sense” approach of calculating the power bill based on an “average” usage by the tenants. See paragraphs 17 and 19.
The landlord’s calculations amount to a monthly bill of just under $275.00. There is no suggestion from the tenant that the landlord was dishonest or not trustworthy; the complaint is that the landlord was not sufficiently conscientious.
I consider a 10% discount in the tenant’s favour ample to cover for any potential inaccuracies by the landlord. Based on all the information before me today I consider $4,909.00 to be the most reasonable conservative estimate of the tenants’ power use over the duration of the tenancy. On the balance of probabilities, this amount is proved.
The landlord stated that during the tenancy the tenant made a payment of $441.85 towards the power bills, and further payment totalling $3,047.00 for combined utilities. When deducted from the $4909.00, the total is reduced to $1,420.15.
With regard to the water rates, the dispute again arose around the metering of the power and water that came through the mini metre installed by Watercare.
The water rates bill was sent each month to the tenant. The tenant was not prepared each month to pay the water bill and then attempt to get reimbursed by the tenants at the minor dwelling and from the landlord for the fixed costs. On top of this the tenant believed the mini metre was unlawful.
The landlord claims that they gave up trying to get money from the tenant because of the position that the tenant insisted on adopting.
By the end of the tenancy the landlord claims the tenant owed $1,285.61. Water rates invoices and calculations were supplied by the landlord in support of this amount, and the tenant did not take issue with any of this information.
I find the claim proved.

Is the tenant 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.
The landlord claims that during the tenancy an area of carpet about the size of a dinner plate beneath a condenser drier, was damaged beyond repair with mould and discolouring. The tenant accepts the damage occurred during the tenancy but disputes it was caused by the condenser drier.
The landlord produced photographs proving the damage and is claiming $800.00 insurance excess.
Because the damage occurred during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability, I find the claim proved.
The carpet was not new at the beginning of the tenancy, the tenancy lasted 20 months, and only a small area of the carpet has been damage. I do not consider it would be reasonable to replace the carpet in the whole room because of this very small area of damage. None the less I accept the landlord has suffered a loss, and the amount I order, which is a nominal amount, is to compensate the landlord for this loss.
The amount is proved.
The tenant did not pursue any other claims raised in her application.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with their claim, I order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5001772 — Property damage at 137 Don Buck Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5001772 — Property damage at 137 Don Buck Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions