What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5396085?

The tribunal order states: Ruby Isabella Grave must pay Vivian Shao and Somang You $1,357.84

How much money was awarded in case 5396085?

Compensation: Loss of amenity (blind…: $975.00 awarded to tenant; Power: $642.64 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $390.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396085?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396085?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13251191-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5396085?

The tribunal order states: Ruby Isabella Grave must pay Vivian Shao and Somang You $1,357.84

How much money was awarded in case 5396085?

Compensation: Loss of amenity (blind…: $975.00 awarded to tenant; Power: $642.64 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $390.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396085?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396085?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13251191-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 3206, 10 Commerce Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5396085 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396085 — net $1,357.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 August 2025	$1,300.00		2026. The order dated 16 January 2026 outlines that the landlord claims the following: a.
Water rates	$390.20		Water rates
Power	$642.64		Power
Compensation: Loss of amenity (blinds		$975.00	Loss of amenity (blinds
Total award	$2,332.84	$975.00
Net award	$1,357.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,357.84

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396085 — net $1,357.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 August 2025	$1,300.00		2026. The order dated 16 January 2026 outlines that the landlord claims the following: a.
Water rates	$390.20		Water rates
Power	$642.64		Power
Compensation: Loss of amenity (blinds		$975.00	Loss of amenity (blinds
Total award	$2,332.84	$975.00
Net award	$1,357.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,357.84

Order

Ruby Isabella Grave must pay Vivian Shao and Somang You $1,357.84 immediately, as set out below.

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 9 March 2026 by video.
The tenancy commenced on 1 June 2023 and ended on 14 August 2025.
The weekly rent for the tenancy was $1300.00 with a bond of $5,200.00. The Bond Centre has released the bond to the tenant.
A Case Conference was held by telephone on 16 January 2026. The order dated 16 January 2026 outlines that the landlord claims the following: a. Refund of the bond b. Rent arrears c. Water rates arrears d. Compensation for internet and power e. Compensation for repairs to a broken chair f. Compensation for removal of carpet stains.
The tenant claims the following: a. Compensation for damaged blinds and loss of amenity b. Compensation for paying over the market rent c. Exemplary damages for the failure of the landlord to maintain the premises (blinds) d. Exemplary damages for the landlord improperly handling the utility services e. Exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment f. Reimbursement of the filing fee. Landlord application Rent arrears
The landlord claims rent arrears of $1,300.00 and filed a rent summary in support.
The tenant claims that she was not aware of the rent arrears until after she moved out of the tenancy. She said that she was unable to check payments in the rent summary with her bank records because after the tenancy ended, she closed her bank account and moved to live in Australia.
I am satisfied that on the evidence available that the tenant owes rent arrears of $1,300.00. Even though the tenant has closed her bank account that is not evidence that she cannot request information from the bank, such as old bank statements to check the payments that she made.
The rent arrears award sought is granted. Power, internet and water claims
The landlord claims power, internet and water costs from the beginning of the tenancy.
From the beginning of the tenancy up until 3 June 2024 (12 months) the landlord paid for these utilities without requesting payment from the tenant or providing her with the invoices.
There is a clause 1 in the tenancy agreement signed by the parties on 31 May 2023 under the heading Tenant’s responsibilities which states, “Pay all electricity, gas telephone, and metered water charges”.
The landlord seeks reimbursement of $3,332.39 for power and internet and $1,645.74 for water. The tenant had paid $161.00 for power which was deducted by the landlord.
Section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) is the relevant section with respect to outgoings: (1) The landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that— (a) are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied; and are incurred for common facilities.... (3) 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 to the tenant’s use of the facilities. (4) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), the tenant is responsible for the following charges, incurred during the tenancy, in respect of the premises:... (c) supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.
The tenants have the obligation to pay for outgoings that are included in their tenancy. However, there is a corresponding implied obligation on a landlord to advise the tenant of the costs clearly and within a reasonable time frame. A tenant must be provided with the actual provider invoices and be able to clearly identify what is their usage. This has been detailed in precedent by the District Court which the Tenancy Tribunal is bound to follow, as discussed below.
Firstly, the case of Braganza v Saia (DC) CIV-2010-004-2024. 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". 2 1 Clause 6, page 2 2 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". 3
The earlier case of Judge McElrea in Woollams v Simpson, CIV-2005-004- 1583, DC Auckland, 16 March 2006, is also relevant. In this case, the tenant had been presented at the end of her tenancy, with a claim for water rates for the three years of her tenancy. Judge McElrea stated: “As a result, in my view, there is a requirement on the landlord seeking to rely on any such arrangement in the lease, that accounts be supplied quarterly or at least within a reasonable period such as within a few weeks after the account is due, unless some other arrangement is agreed between the parties. Failure to do that has predictable consequences for any tenant and apparently did have 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 and justice of the case.”
In the more recent case of Nordon 3202 Ltd v Shailaja Nair [2018] NZDC 17499, the facts are similar as the landlord failed to charge water rates during the term of the tenancy but presented the tenant with an account at the end. At paragraph 19 Judge Sinclair says: “It is the obligation of the landlord to supply the water rates accounts to the tenant. Furthermore, this obligation cannot be deflected by saying that the tenant was aware of their responsibility to pay such outgoings and/or did not raise the issue.”
The landlord stated that the tenant had agreed to pay for the utilities that she had not received invoices for. The tenant denies this. There is no record of the agreement.
In May 2024 the landlord provided the tenant with a spreadsheet setting out the amounts for the invoices from the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant stated that she had asked the landlord on several occasions for the provider invoices and for the utilities to be transferred to her name. She said that she would have been able to obtain more competitive rates for power supply through her employment. The transfer to her preferred providers did not occur until after September 2024
As stated in the case law referred to above, the tenant was unable to verify the charges up to 12 months earlier. Also, even though she asked repeatedly for the invoices, she did not receive those invoices until 18 August 2025, after the tenancy ended. 3 Paragraph 16
Based on the case law the power and water charges where the landlord did not provide the invoices in a timely manner are not granted to the landlord.
In relation to Wi-Fi, I note that there is nothing in the tenancy agreement to say that Wi-Fi is included as a cost for the tenant. Also, at the hearing the tenant said that she never used the Wi-Fi because she had data through her employment.
When asked whether the Wi-Fi was password protected the landlord confirmed that it was and that the tenant had been provided with the password at the beginning of the tenancy on a sheet of paper with other housekeeping information. Later the landlord said that there were other ways to connect to the internet but did not provide any detail or evidence. The landlord also did not provide a copy of the document containing the housekeeping information.
The landlord sent ten Electric Kiwi invoices for power and internet to the tenant from 3 June 2024 until 29 September 2024. Those were the only Electric Kiwi invoices sent to the tenant during the period when the amounts were due. I have deducted the Wi-Fi component of the invoices because I am not convinced that this was a cost agreed to at the beginning of the tenancy or one where the tenant was able to make use of it without evidence of having a Wi-Fi password. The amount awarded for power reimbursement is $642.64.
In relation to water, the landlord sent four water invoices to the tenant dated 23 May 2024, 21 June 2024, 23 July 2024 and 20 September 2024. The total owed for those invoices was $472.13.
The tenant is liable for water based on consumption 4 and that means that the tenant is not liable for any fixed daily charge. After deducting the daily fixed charge on the four invoices the total owed by the tenant is $390.20.
While the tenant argued that she had not agreed to pay for utilities such as water and power I refer to the clause in the tenancy agreement referred to above. I accept that the tenant had requested to transfer the utilities into her name but there was no evidence that she could not do so without the landlord taking steps. Broken chair
The landlord claimed for replacement of a chair broken during the tenancy. The landlord produced a screenshot from a website which shows that the price of this chair is $349.00. The landlord has not produced an invoice for the chair because it has not been replaced. 4 Section 39(4)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The tenant stated that the chair had a crack at the beginning of the tenancy and was wobbly although it seems that this was not brought to the landlord’s attention.
To succeed with this claim the landlord must prove that the chair was damaged during the tenancy and that the damage was caused by the tenant or someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission. If the tenant (or their guest) broke the chair through carelessness or intentionally, the tenant may be liable for the cost of repair or replacement. If the chair broke due to normal use over time, the tenant is not liable.
The tenant acknowledged that the chair broke early in the tenancy when she sat on it. She advised the landlord during the first inspection in January 2024. The landlord took the chair back away and left the base of the chair for the tenant to continue to use. The landlord did not get the chair fixed and it seems did not raise the issue of the tenant’s liability until after the tenancy ended. The tenant states that there was no mention of the broken chair during the exit inspection.
The chair was broken almost two years before the tenancy ended. The landlord was aware of the damage for that period and took no action and therefore appears to have accepted the situation or failed to mitigate their loss. The tenant continued to pay full rent for a furnished apartment with a broken chair.
The landlord says that the chair was purchased in 2021 and when he discovered it broken, he did not want the expense of buying a new one. He did not seek to recover the cost from the tenant at the time.
After purchase of the chair, it was used by the landlords for a period and by about four short term tenancies over a six-month period.
While I accept the chair broke during the tenancy it may have been damaged by the other people using it before this tenant. Also, it seems that it broke from normal use as there is no evidence of careless or intentional damage.
On the evidence I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for the damaged chair as it likely broke from normal use and therefore from fair wear and tear. The claim for compensation to replace the chair is dismissed. Stained carpet
The landlord claimed for the cost of treating carpet stains at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said that the stains are in the hallway and the bedroom. The landlord did not produce a pre tenancy report and instead relies on photographs from the inspection in January 2024.
At the date of hearing the stains have not been treated even though there is a new tenant in the premises and the landlord only produced a quote for treatment of the stains.
The quote is for carpet or upholstery cleaning for an area up to 20 m². There were stains on the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy. It is not clear that this quote is to treat only the two stains that the landlord said was caused during this tenancy.
The tenant denies causing the two stains.
One of the photographs produced by the landlord from the January inspection is not clear and when it is zoomed in it may show one of the stains that the landlord says that the tenant caused.
The evidence is not sufficiently clear to show that the tenant caused two carpet stains. Furthermore, the quote produced would include stains that were pre- existing when the tenancy started. For these reasons the landlord’s claim for carpet stain removal is dismissed. Tenant application Loss of amenity (blinds)
The tenant claims for loss of amenity in relation to the blinds at the premises. They are controlled with a small motor, and it seems that some of the motors failed during the tenancy.
The tenant said that there was three times when the blinds broke, and she advised the landlord. The first time occurred on 5 June 2024, and she says the broken blind was not fixed until July 2024. The second occasion was from 17 September 2024, and it was fixed after October 2024. The third occasion was on 28 June 2025 and the blind was not fixed at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said that they were working with the contractor and did not think that it took too long to fix the blinds. The landlord said that the electric motors had to be replaced, and parts were ordered from Australia.
The landlord thought that the contractor provided a temporary measure to enable the blinds to be closed manually but the tenant denies that this happened. There was not evidence produced to support this.
The tenant says that without the blinds her privacy was compromised, and the blinds were needed for heating the apartment. For a period the tenant had surgery and needed the blinds closed.
The premises have floor to ceiling windows and without the blinds closed it is quite possible that people in neighbouring buildings could see in, particularly when the lights are on. In addition, this is a high-end apartment where the tenant is paying a substantial weekly rent where she is entitled to expect all the amenities that were present at the beginning would continue to be available. That includes window coverings such as blinds.
I consider that the tenant should be compensated for loss of amenity. I have calculated that the tenant experienced broken blinds over a period adding up to 15 weeks. I have awarded compensation of 5% of the weekly rent for the 15- week period which amounts to $975.00. Market rent
The tenant seeks compensation for paying over market rent for the premises.
The tenant sent a text to the landlord on 13 December 2024 requesting a rent reduction. The tenant submitted that she made enquiries with others living at the apartment block and discovered that some were paying less than she was including one with a larger apartment. She also referred to listings for two- bedroom apartments for rent and two were priced $100.00 less than hers and had remained on the market for several months.
The tenant also advised at the time that she had had a change in her financial situation.
Section 25(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides; “On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent.”
The tenant must provide evidence that the rent is above the market rent by a substantial amount for comparable properties. This usually includes recent listings, rent appraisals, or expert evidence. The Tribunal cannot reduce the rent simply because the tenant believes it is too high or she has had a change in her financial situation. There must be objective evidence to support the claim.
While the tenant referred to other properties in her communication with the landlord no detail was provided to the Tribunal. The tenant’s claim for compensation due to the rent being above market rent is dismissed due to lack of evidence. Exemplary damages
The tenant seeks exemplary damages in respect of the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises, the landlord improperly handling the utility services, and breach of quiet enjoyment.
The Tribunal can consider and determine any complaint by any party to a tenancy agreement that any person has committed an unlawful act, and where it finds such a complaint proved, to order such sum in the nature of exemplary damages, as the Tribunal may thing just 5 .
The landlord improperly handling the utility services is not an unlawful act and therefore exemplary damages are not available.
The failure of the landlord to maintain the premises is in relation to the broken blinds. The Tribunal has awarded compensation for loss of amenity in relation to the broken blinds. For the Tribunal to consider awarding exemplary damages it must be satisfied that the landlord intentionally 6 committed the unlawful act of failing to maintain the premises. I am not satisfied that it was intentional because the landlord took steps to address the issue of the broken blinds but for reasons likely outside their control there were delays.
The breach of quiet enjoyment claim also relates to the lack of blinds during a period of the tenancy for which compensation has been awarded. Again, I do not consider that any breach of quiet enjoyment was intentional.
The tenant’s claims for exemplary damage are dismissed for the reasons set out above. Filing fee
As both parties have had some success with their applications I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396085 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 3206, 10 Commerce Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396085 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 3206, 10 Commerce Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions