What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5214476?

The tribunal order states: Prestige Property Management Limited As Agent For A Gray Homes must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5214476?

Compensation: Gas Use: $1,573.86 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5214476?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5214476?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12044723-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5214476?

The tribunal order states: Prestige Property Management Limited As Agent For A Gray Homes must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5214476?

Compensation: Gas Use: $1,573.86 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5214476?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5214476?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12044723-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Buccleugh Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5214476 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5214476 — net $2,100.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Gas use	$1,573.86	19. The landlord is ordered to pay $1,573.86 to the tenant.
Exemplary damages: Contravene Act	$500.00	Contravene Act
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,100.86
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,100.86

Order

Prestige Property Management Limited As Agent For A Gray Homes must pay Azalia Grace Best $2,100.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 9 June 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 11 August 2023 and ended on 16 January 2025.
The tenant’s claims are; • Compensation for outgoings which have not been metered separately (s.39 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) • Compensation for refusing to supply utilities. • Landlord requiring security other than the permitted bond.(s 18A RTA). • Prohibited transaction.(s.137 RTA). • Reimbursement of the filing fee.
Whilst the tenant has lodged a number of claims with the Tribunal, the essence of the dispute is relatively limited in nature. Evidence
The tenanted premises are one of two buildings on the site. The tenant lived in the front building with her ex-wife. Another tenant lived in the unit at the rear of the property.
The tenant entered into a tenancy agreement. The tenant’s signature on the agreement is dated 21 July 2023. The relevant sections of the agreement record that; The tenant is to be responsible for any gas usage. The hot water on the premises used gas. Gas was not used for anything else. “Gas Bottles - gas bottles are shared with the back unit. The unit is charged $30 per month for their use which will be paid to your nominated bank account at the end of each month. The gas bottles are the responsibility of this property and will need to arrange their own supplier.”
The tenant said that she paid for the gas bottle rental on a yearly basis and for all gas use.
The tenant was to receive a payment of $30.00 per month from the landlord as compensation for any gas use by the tenant in the rear unit. The gas use by the tenant in the rear unit was not metered in any fashion.
The tenant’s original application was for compensation in the sum of $4,754.03 being all gas use, less any money received from the landlord.
The tenant said that in August or September 2024, she raised the issue of metering of the gas with the landlord. She didn't feel that the landlord thought that this was important. At one point, the gas ran out and the tenant was told that arrangements for the supply of gas were their responsibility. The tenant said that they went for a week without any gas.
The landlord relied on the terms of the tenancy agreement. The landlord said that gas couldn't be supplied to the rear unit, as both buildings were on the one site and as a result, only one could receive a supply of gas.
Section 39 RTA provides that the tenant shall be responsible for gas charges.
In Geraghty v Raui (2019) NZDC 3818, the District Court held that in considering whether to require the tenant to pay for outgoings when there is no means of accurately calculating the tenant’s actual consumption, the Tribunal must have regard to s.85 RTA.
Section 85(2) RTA provides; “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 forms or technicalities.”
Both landlord and tenant must accept the commonsense proposition that the tenant at the rear unit has used gas and that they should pay for their reasonable use and the tenant in this application should be compensated for payments made which were essentially for the use of gas by the tenant in the rear unit.
What is in question in this case is not how much gas has been used, as that is clear from the invoices provided by the gas supplier. What is in question is what use can be assigned to the tenant at the rear unit where use is not metered. As there is no meter it is impossible to make a completely accurate assessment.
The gas is used to heat water only. At all relevant times there was only one person living in the rear unit and two people living in the front unit. As best as I am able to assess the situation, it would seem reasonable to assess the tenant’s premises as using 66.6% of the total gas use and bottle hire (less the payments already received by the tenant from the landlord).No evidence was received to suggest that the hot water use by either group should be substantially more or less when assessed on a per capita basis.
The tenant has provided copies of invoices from her gas supplier, evidence of the payments received from the landlord and a schedule summary. The summary figured are as follows (and differ from the amounts claimed in the tenant’s initial application): Total payments made by tenant$5,742.17 Usage and hire charges allocated to tenant in rear unit (33.33%) $1,913.86 Less compensating payments made to the tenant$340.00 Net amount to be allocated to rear unit$1,573.86
The landlord is ordered to pay $1,573.86 to the tenant.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord refusing to supply utilities. The burden of proving the claim is on the tenant. The landlord is not under an obligation to supply gas. That is clearly stated in the tenancy agreement to be a tenant obligation. Similarly, no evidence of the landlord requiring security other than the permitted bond was proffered by the tenant. Both claims are dismissed.
Section 137 RTA provides that no person may enter into any contract which purports to do anything that contravenes the RTA. Requiring any person to enter into any contract in contravention with the section is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded to a maximum of $1,800.00. Requiring a tenant to pay for the outgoings of another tenanted premises, where those outgoings are not metered is a prohibited transaction as it contravenes the provisions of the RTA.
I find that the landlord has have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I must first consider whether the landlord has acted intentionally in this matter. As the requirement for the tenant to pay for the neighbouring units gas is set out in the tenancy agreement, I consider that the landlord must have acted intentionally. The effect of the unlawful act has been to cause the tenant to pay substantially more by way of outgoings than might otherwise have been the situation had the landlord acted correctly. It is in the best interests of this tenant and tenants generally, to have payments for outgoings limited to their use, as is required by section 39 RTA. Having reviewed all of the relevant evidence in this case, I consider that an award of exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale is appropriate. The landlord is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $500.00.
As Azalia Grace Best has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5214476 — net $2,100.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Gas use	$1,573.86	19. The landlord is ordered to pay $1,573.86 to the tenant.
Exemplary damages: Contravene Act	$500.00	Contravene Act
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,100.86
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,100.86

Order

Prestige Property Management Limited As Agent For A Gray Homes must pay Azalia Grace Best $2,100.86 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 9 June 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 11 August 2023 and ended on 16 January 2025.
The tenant’s claims are; • Compensation for outgoings which have not been metered separately (s.39 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) • Compensation for refusing to supply utilities. • Landlord requiring security other than the permitted bond.(s 18A RTA). • Prohibited transaction.(s.137 RTA). • Reimbursement of the filing fee.
Whilst the tenant has lodged a number of claims with the Tribunal, the essence of the dispute is relatively limited in nature. Evidence
The tenanted premises are one of two buildings on the site. The tenant lived in the front building with her ex-wife. Another tenant lived in the unit at the rear of the property.
The tenant entered into a tenancy agreement. The tenant’s signature on the agreement is dated 21 July 2023. The relevant sections of the agreement record that; The tenant is to be responsible for any gas usage. The hot water on the premises used gas. Gas was not used for anything else. “Gas Bottles - gas bottles are shared with the back unit. The unit is charged $30 per month for their use which will be paid to your nominated bank account at the end of each month. The gas bottles are the responsibility of this property and will need to arrange their own supplier.”
The tenant said that she paid for the gas bottle rental on a yearly basis and for all gas use.
The tenant was to receive a payment of $30.00 per month from the landlord as compensation for any gas use by the tenant in the rear unit. The gas use by the tenant in the rear unit was not metered in any fashion.
The tenant’s original application was for compensation in the sum of $4,754.03 being all gas use, less any money received from the landlord.
The tenant said that in August or September 2024, she raised the issue of metering of the gas with the landlord. She didn't feel that the landlord thought that this was important. At one point, the gas ran out and the tenant was told that arrangements for the supply of gas were their responsibility. The tenant said that they went for a week without any gas.
The landlord relied on the terms of the tenancy agreement. The landlord said that gas couldn't be supplied to the rear unit, as both buildings were on the one site and as a result, only one could receive a supply of gas.
Section 39 RTA provides that the tenant shall be responsible for gas charges.
In Geraghty v Raui (2019) NZDC 3818, the District Court held that in considering whether to require the tenant to pay for outgoings when there is no means of accurately calculating the tenant’s actual consumption, the Tribunal must have regard to s.85 RTA.
Section 85(2) RTA provides; “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 forms or technicalities.”
Both landlord and tenant must accept the commonsense proposition that the tenant at the rear unit has used gas and that they should pay for their reasonable use and the tenant in this application should be compensated for payments made which were essentially for the use of gas by the tenant in the rear unit.
What is in question in this case is not how much gas has been used, as that is clear from the invoices provided by the gas supplier. What is in question is what use can be assigned to the tenant at the rear unit where use is not metered. As there is no meter it is impossible to make a completely accurate assessment.
The gas is used to heat water only. At all relevant times there was only one person living in the rear unit and two people living in the front unit. As best as I am able to assess the situation, it would seem reasonable to assess the tenant’s premises as using 66.6% of the total gas use and bottle hire (less the payments already received by the tenant from the landlord).No evidence was received to suggest that the hot water use by either group should be substantially more or less when assessed on a per capita basis.
The tenant has provided copies of invoices from her gas supplier, evidence of the payments received from the landlord and a schedule summary. The summary figured are as follows (and differ from the amounts claimed in the tenant’s initial application): Total payments made by tenant$5,742.17 Usage and hire charges allocated to tenant in rear unit (33.33%) $1,913.86 Less compensating payments made to the tenant$340.00 Net amount to be allocated to rear unit$1,573.86
The landlord is ordered to pay $1,573.86 to the tenant.
The tenant seeks compensation for the landlord refusing to supply utilities. The burden of proving the claim is on the tenant. The landlord is not under an obligation to supply gas. That is clearly stated in the tenancy agreement to be a tenant obligation. Similarly, no evidence of the landlord requiring security other than the permitted bond was proffered by the tenant. Both claims are dismissed.
Section 137 RTA provides that no person may enter into any contract which purports to do anything that contravenes the RTA. Requiring any person to enter into any contract in contravention with the section is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded to a maximum of $1,800.00. Requiring a tenant to pay for the outgoings of another tenanted premises, where those outgoings are not metered is a prohibited transaction as it contravenes the provisions of the RTA.
I find that the landlord has have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I must first consider whether the landlord has acted intentionally in this matter. As the requirement for the tenant to pay for the neighbouring units gas is set out in the tenancy agreement, I consider that the landlord must have acted intentionally. The effect of the unlawful act has been to cause the tenant to pay substantially more by way of outgoings than might otherwise have been the situation had the landlord acted correctly. It is in the best interests of this tenant and tenants generally, to have payments for outgoings limited to their use, as is required by section 39 RTA. Having reviewed all of the relevant evidence in this case, I consider that an award of exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale is appropriate. The landlord is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $500.00.
As Azalia Grace Best has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5214476 — Exemplary damages at 25 Buccleugh Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5214476 — Exemplary damages at 25 Buccleugh Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011

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