What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5303983?

The tribunal order states: M&M Limited Mani must pay Frederick Julek Tomas $7,528.00 immediately as

How much money was awarded in case 5303983?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $5,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303983?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303983?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13003815-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5303983?

The tribunal order states: M&M Limited Mani must pay Frederick Julek Tomas $7,528.00 immediately as

How much money was awarded in case 5303983?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $5,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303983?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303983?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13003815-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

41 Arthur Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5303983 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303983 — net $7,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$2,500.00	Failure to maintain
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$5,000.00	Loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,528.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303983 — net $7,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$2,500.00	Failure to maintain
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$5,000.00	Loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,528.00

Order

M&M Limited Mani must pay Frederick Julek Tomas $7,528.00 immediately as recorded in the following table:

The landlord’s application (5356076) is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
The tenancy concerns a 1907 three‑bedroom, one‑bathroom villa with a stand‑alone garage. The tenancy started on or about 26 September 2020. The tenant vacated on 15 December 2025. The landlord purchased the house in 2013.
Shortly after moving in, the tenant reported that the front door did not close properly and that there were leaks in several areas of the house. Over time further issues were raised, including draughts, deck/step rot, subsidence in bedroom two (with a cracked window), and a degraded shower door. The tenant seeks compensation (including loss of amenity) and an electricity contribution.
The tenant made his application seeking compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlord cross applied responding to the tenant claims. The landlord’s application is dismissed.
I held a hearing with both parties present today.
There has been a lot of communication between the parties by text and email. Both have provided documentary evidence and submissions.
I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must decides are these: a. Did the landlord commit any unlawful acts? If so, Should the Tribunal award the tenant exemplary damages? b. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation? c. Did the issues cause loss of amenity justifying rent abatement? d. Is a contribution to electricity costs appropriate on the evidence filed in support? Relevant law
Section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out what is required to be contained in a tenancy agreement. Section 13(1CA) requires a landlord to sign a statement that on, or after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord with comply with the HHS, and a statement that includes the information prescribed by regulations made under section 138B(5) RTA – information relating to the Healthy Home Standards (HHS).
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them is the requirement that a landlord comply with the HHS.
A failure by a landlord to comply with these requirements is an unlawful act in each case – section 13A(1F) RTA and section 45(1A) RTA.
Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
Section 109 RTA sets out what must be established before the Tribunal can award exemplary damages.
Schedule 1A RTA sets out the maximum amounts that can be awarded by way of exemplary damages Other legal considerations
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [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.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
A tenant’s compensation claim can be for an actual loss (for example, the cost of a HHS report) or for the loss of use of and therefore enjoyment of the tenancy (for example, due to a flooding event and the repairs carried out, and because the premises were not HHS compliant).
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party.
In Birch, the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a)The intention of the person; (b)The effect of the unlawful act; (c)The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d)The public interest.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: a. The intention of the person; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest. Discussion Failure to transfer bond
The tenant claims that there was an unreasonable delay transferring the bond from joint names into the name of this tenant. The tenant says that he made the request to transfer the bond into his name some 12 months earlier. The tenant accepted that he did not suffer an actual loss because of this alleged breach.
The tenant submits that despite repeated request for the bond payment and bond to be transferred into his sole name, the landlord has failed to action the transfer.
The tenant says that he has complied with all relevant obligations and signed the necessary documentation and is unable to ascertain why the transfer has not occurred. He says that according to Tenancy Services, the bond is currently listed as "still not claimed."
The landlords responded by stating that they received one email in respect of the bond on 23 January 2023. The email was a request from the tenant to transfer the bond into his name.
The landlord says that they never experienced this before and had to phone Tenancy Services and ask what to do. The landlord says that they missed the original email.
On 3 January 2024 the landlord signed the bond transfer and submitted to the bond centre. They say that they were not aware that the bond had not been transferred. The landlord called the bond centre after the case management conference in October 2025. They say that the bond centre made some enquiries and eventually said that the parties had to resubmit their signatures.
The tenant says that there were several emails to the landlord chasing the bond transfer. The tenant says that it was not just one email but a series of emails from the tenant chasing the bond transfer. Analysis
The tenant first requested transfer on 23 Jan 2023 and followed up several times. The landlord was unfamiliar with the process, contacted Tenancy Services, and completed steps including 3 Jan 2024 resubmission.
While the delay is unsatisfactory, intentional non‑compliance is not proved.
The tenant suffered no direct financial loss.
Accordingly, the claim for failing to transfer bond has not been established.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Frederick Julek Tomas claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must • provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
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: s 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains 2 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...”
Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 3 2 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. Footnotes not included 3 Ibid However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation...
The tenant claims exemplary damages for a breach of landlord obligations for failing to maintain.
The tenant says that all his claims are pre-5 September 2025 when the Healthy Homes assessment report was made available. The Healthy Homes assessment report was dated 23 September 2025. The assessment confirms the premises are fully compliant with the Healthy Home Regulations.
The tenant maintains that there were leaks, draughts and other issues, including issues with the outdoor areas of the house. The tenant says there was a clear failing to maintain.
The tenant submits that he has serious concerns regarding the condition of the property and the recurring nature of these issues.
Persistent draughts have necessitated increased use of heating to maintain a reasonable level of comfort, resulting in higher power bills than would otherwise be expected.
Additionally, ongoing leaks have led to elevated moisture levels within the property, requiring the regular use of dehumidifiers to mitigate dampness and prevent mould growth. These additional expenses have placed a financial burden on him as a tenant and further highlight the impact that the unresolved defects are having on both his wellbeing and the habitability of the property.
The tenant provided detailed and helpful written submissions in support of his claims. Leaks: The tenant, submits as follows
There are several areas within the property that leak, including the kitchen and bathroom windows and a leak inside the wall of the third bedroom.
The tenant says that it is unsustainable to be burdened with leaks every time it rains. The tenant says that it has taken up a significant amount of their time and energy that could be spent on other endeavours, and continuing in this manner for the foreseeable future was not feasible.
The tenant also submits that ongoing leaks have affected both his health and the integrity of the property. Persistent moisture and damp conditions have created an environment conducive to mould growth, which poses serious health risks. In addition, the leaks have the potential to cause visible damage to the structural elements, including staining, warping and deterioration of the windowsills and walls. The tenant says that these issues compromise both the habitability of the property and its overall value.
While the landlord has attempted to repair leaks as they have arisen, his impression is that these efforts have addressed only the symptoms of the leaks rather than the underlying causes or defects. The tenant is concerned that the approach to "patch" repairs has not and will not address the underlying issues and will not prevent this problem reoccurring.
The tenant says that his former partner, in her letter in support, referred to leaks. The leaks occurred in the two bifold doors in the kitchen, leaks in the kitchen window, the bathroom window, the master bedroom and the window frame of the spare bedroom.
He says that that the leaks continued after repairs had been undertaken. The third bedroom had leaks coming from the window frame. The garage roof also leaked. The tenant provided a reference letter from his former partner in support of his claims.
The landlords responded by saying that the first leak happened in July 2022. They received an email from the former tenant bringing this and other issues to their attention.
The tenants attended the property without delay and undertook an assessment. The leaks were from the kitchen window and above the bifold door. There was another in the spare room.
The landlords then decided to replace the roof which took place in August 2022 by Apex Roof Restoration. The landlords say that there was the extreme weather events in Auckland in January 2023. The landlords say that after the weather events there were some further leaks because of the gutters.
The landlords say that the next leak event was a leak from the bathroom window ledge. This was in January 2025. There was also the master bedroom at the front of the house. The landlords say that they went over each time they heard about a leak. The landlords say that they had a builder attend and install a flashing on top of the windows. They also installed down piping on the kitchen side of the house. They also installed flashing above the kitchen window where it was leaking.
The tenants say that replacing the roof was not the fix all as the landlords suggest. The tenant says that it was also the weather boards on the part of the house where the 3rd bedroom is. Draughts:
The tenant submits that the presence of draughts and gaps between the window glass and framing, as well as the French bifold doors, has affected both comfort and safety within the property. He submits that the defects allow cold air and moisture to enter, leading to increased energy costs and an uncomfortable indoor environment.
The gaps also compromise the structural integrity of the windows by allowing water to damage the surrounding materials. The tenant says that he has advised the landlord that the gaps have caused the wooden framing in the front master bedroom to become rotten.
The tenant submits that the leak and draught issues are in breach of the landlord's obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act to meet and maintain a healthy homes standards.
The tenant says that there were draughts in the kitchen window. The bifold doors would also not close properly which created a draught. The was also a draught from the living room windows and all windows in the second bedroom (the spare room) and the front door.
The tenant says that his former partner sent text messages and emails to the landlord bringing these and other issues to their attention.
The landlords say that they installed draught stoppers on the bottom of the doors. The tenant says that the draught from the front door was not fixed properly.
The landlord says that the bifold doors were assessed by a certified builder and by a healthy homes assessor. They say that the doors are aluminium with no draughts coming through the doors. They further state that the windows have sealing applied which is common with houses of this era. The property also includes a heat pump which is meets the Healthy Homes Standards. Outdoor areas:
The tenant submits that the condition of the outdoor areas surrounding the Property have deteriorated due to a lack of maintenance.
The tenant says that the back deck had extensive rotten floorboards, creating an unsafe surface and risk of injury. Photographic evidence was provided in support of this.
Additionally, the outdoor steps are falling apart, further compromising safe access to and from the property.
At the front of the Property, subsidence has affected the structural stability of the porch, and the decking there is also rotten. He says that these issues are not only clear health and safety hazards but also demonstrate the landlord's ongoing lack of maintenance of the property.
The tenant says that there was rotten wood on the rear deck floorboards and the back doorsteps. The tenant says that one or two of the deck planks was rotten.
The landlord says that their builder looked at these areas. The builder replaced part of the decking. The builder also replaced the entire back doorsteps. The builder did this work in January 2025.
The tenant responded by saying that the back steps were not fully replaced. The tenant says that a couple of the boards at the top had only been replaced. Second bedroom subsidence:
The tenant says that his former partner referenced this issue back in 12 December 2020. She noticed a cracked window and followed up with the landlord. The tenant’s former partner sent a follow up text to the landlord on 5 January 2021 regarding the windows. It was then fixed on or about late January/early February 2022. The landlords were also advised at this point of time about the subsidence and rotting timber floors and framing in the same room (being the same bedroom).
The former tenant then emailed the landlord on 12 July 2022 in respect of various leaks, the bay window in bedroom two and further subsidence in bedroom two. The tenant says that the bedroom window took 4 to 6 months to replace. The cracked glass was replaced on 4 February 2021. The tenant also says that the reason for the window cracking was directly related to the subsidence. The tenant says that they had to chase the landlord on several occasions regarding this.
The landlords say that when they rented the property the tenants would have seen the room. They say that the subsidence was first brought to their attention on or about March 2021. They had it checked by a certified builder. No action was taken by the builder. In January last year they say these issues came up again. In January 2025 the issues were raised again. They say they had fixed the leaks and also had a builder attend in respect of the subsidence. The builder turned up and ended up undertaking some reinforcing of the piling. This also included the removal of the panelling.
The landlord says that the issue was fixed in March 2025. They further state that the bay window was not rotting but rather due to the era of the house and movement in foundations. They say that a registered builder confirmed that there was no danger associated with the subsidence.
The tenant says that the work associated with the subsidence was significant and took approximately 6 months. The landlords say approximately 2 months.
The landlords say that the tenant had the opportunity to leave in January 2025 when he was advised about the repair work which need to take place.
In his written submissions the tenant says that he has tried to engage with the landlord via email and text correspondence when issues with the property have arisen. He says the following correspondence is evidence of these attempts: “ I have proactively tried to engage with the landlord through email correspondence and text messages about the issues with the Property when they occur. The following correspondence are some examples of the communication that has been exchanged with the landlord a. Text message exchange between Ms Mnich and the landlord on from 12 December 2020 to 28 May 2021, which shows the length of time it took for the window to be patched following us notifying the landlord about the issue; b. Email correspondence from Ms Mnich to the landlord on 12 July 2022, in which Ms Mnich advises the landlord that there leaks in the spare bedroom, and the bay window has subsided; and c. Email correspondence from myself and the landlord on 17 March 2025, in which I outline the issues with Property that still need to be remedied by the landlord.
On 25 June 2025, I provided written notices to the landlord under the Act requiring them to remedy the following issues within at least 14 days from receiving the notice: a. Fix the broken electronics across the Property; b. Fix the bathroom window to stop the leaks; c. Fix the entire porch and front entrance area; d. Fix the broken/old/ rotten shower door wheels; e. Fix the windows so they can shut properly; Shower roller door:
The tenant also says that the shower door rollers were corroded. This was brought to the attention to the landlord by the tenant verbally. The landlords ended up replacing the entire shower door in September 2025. Although the shower door would still close the tenant says that it would leak on to the floor. The tenant says that it took too long to replace the door. Analysis
Having carefully considered the material before the Tribunal I find that the tenant’s claim for failing to maintain is supported by the evidence.
Exemplary damages require proof that the landlord acted intentionally, with knowledge, or with reckless disregard of their obligations under the Act.
While the evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the landlord made attempts to address the maintenance issues raised, including arranging inspections, engaging tradespersons, and undertaking repairs, nothing alters the fact that the tenant suffered through months of frustration and inconvenience.
The premises is a dwelling constructed in 1910, and the landlord’s obligations under section 45 must be assessed having proper regard to the age and character of the house.
I accept the landlord’s conduct at times demonstrates efforts to comply with the obligation to maintain the premises under section 45 RTA, especially in line with the age of the premises. However, although the landlord took steps such as a new roof in August 2022, flashings/downpipes, partial deck/step works in January 2025, material defects persisted for prolonged periods, including renewed leaks in 2023 and 2025.
I am entirely satisfied that the landlord’s conduct at times amounted to an intentional breach or a reckless disregard of statutory obligations, particularly those inherent in a dwelling of this age.
Section 109 of the RTA requires that, for exemplary damages to be awarded, the landlord’s breach must be intentional.
The factors listed in section 109(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which must be considered when deciding whether to award exemplary damages, are: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act; b. The effect of the unlawful act; c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The evidence, especially during the period of 2021, 2022 and 2025, support such a finding. While I accept the landlord’s attempts to respond to various maintenance requests, there were several occasions where the tenant had to make repeated requests for action.
In June 2025 the tenant was forced to serve 3 remedy notices on the landlord in respect of ongoing maintenance issues. Having considered the various emails from 2021, 2022 and 2025 the tenant’s frustration is palpable.
Accordingly, the claim for failing to maintain has been established.
In determining whether to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to the factors set out in section 109(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. These include the intent of the landlord in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the tenant, the public interest, and whether it is just to make the award.
In this case, I am satisfied that the landlord’s breach was at times, intentional, and the effect on the tenant was a house which was in constant need of maintenance.
The interests of the tenant and the public interest in ensuring compliance with the Act are significant considerations. Having regard to all of these factors, I consider that it is appropriate to award exemplary damages in this case.
Accordingly, a global award $2500.00 for exemplary damages is allowed. Loss of amenity:

Should the landlord compensate the tenant for loss of amenity?

The tenant contends that the landlord has not maintained the premises to a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant claims 15% of the total rent paid from 9 October 2020 to 2 September 2025. The tenant says that as a result of the condition of the house they did not have full use of the second bedroom, part of the kitchen, a section of the garage, the front porch and a section of the back deck.
The tenants stopped using the second bedroom as a study due to the subsidence.
The landlords says that they struggle to understand this claim. Prior to these tenants moving in they installed an extraction fan, new carpet, and renovation of the kitchen and bathroom. A heat pump was installed on 15 July 2021.
The tenant ceased using bedroom two as a study due to subsidence, and the functionality of kitchen/bifold area, front porch/back deck, and part of the garage was impaired at times. I find this to be an inconvenience and loss of amenity for the tenants.
The tenant sought 15% of rent from 9 Oct 2020 to 2 Sept 2025. I find that the evidence does not support a claim of 15% for this period.
The landlords do not accept the claim for loss of amenity.
The tenant has claimed compensation for loss of amenity arising from the ongoing disruption.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises was materially reduced as a result of the landlord’s breach of obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In assessing compensation for loss of amenity, the Tribunal is not required to apply a strict formula or percentage of the weekly rent. Rather, the Tribunal may award a global sum that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, having regard to the nature, duration, and impact of the loss suffered by the tenant.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant experienced a sustained and material reduction in the use and enjoyment of the premises during the relevant period.
The evidence establishes that the interference went beyond mere inconvenience and had a real impact on the tenant’s ability to fully enjoy the tenancy as contemplated by the Residential Tenancies Act.
While the premises remained habitable, the nature, duration, and cumulative effect of the issues justify an award for loss of amenity.
In assessing quantum, the Tribunal notes that the relevant maintenance issues were isolated to discreet periods, mainly in 2022, 2023 and 2025 and were not continuous throughout the tenancy.
Assessing the matter objectively and having regard to proportionality, the Tribunal considers an award of $5,000.00 to be fair and reasonable compensation for the loss of amenity suffered. This figure reflects the limited temporal scope of the issues, the degree of interference experienced, and the absence of any basis for a higher award.
Considering (i) age of the villa (1907), (ii) landlord response efforts, (iii) duration and recurrence of defects, and (iv) impact on day‑to‑day use and comfort, I assess general maintenance compensation at $5,000.00 as fair and proportionate. Electricity part refund
The tenant says that they had to use a lot more electricity due to the draught and leaks. His former partner used a knitting machine and had materials which they could not afford to get damaged. The tenants had two dehumidifiers running along with two heaters. The heat pump was also running. The tenant claims for electricity for this extra electricity for $4050.00 for the 5 years.
The landlords do not accept the claim for a part refund of electricity paid by the tenant. They say it’s an old villa with full insulation.
The tenant claims $4,050.00 over 5 years for extra electricity (dehumidifiers, heaters, heat pump). While increased usage is plausible given leaks/draughts and protecting belongings, the claim spans a long period without granular billing analysis or expert apportionment.
There was no additional supporting evidence provided by the tenants, for example an electrician’s report, or confirmation of what was included in the ‘controlled’ portion of a power bill from the power company, or from a professional indicating the likely difference in power usage that could have resulted from the leak.
Given this, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove that the tenants paid excessive power bills for the period of the leak directly because of the leak, and so dismiss this claim.
Because Frederick Julek Tomas has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303983 — State of repair at 41 Arthur Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303983 — State of repair at 41 Arthur Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Should the landlord compensate the tenant for loss of amenity?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Should the landlord compensate the tenant for loss of amenity?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions