What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5407412?

The tribunal order states: Kiritahanga Clark and Levi Spooner must pay Nsvw Investment Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5407412?

Previous Order Application 5407412 D…: $3,853.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,769.91 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407412?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407412?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13661612-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5407412?

The tribunal order states: Kiritahanga Clark and Levi Spooner must pay Nsvw Investment Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5407412?

Previous Order Application 5407412 D…: $3,853.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,769.91 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407412?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407412?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13661612-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20A Serwayne Place, Sunnyvale, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5407412 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5407412 — net $5,622.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5407412 dated 03/03/2026	$3,853.00	Previous order application 5407412 dated 03/03/2026
Water rates: to 16.2.26	$1,769.91	Water rates: to 16.2.26
Net award	$5,622.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,622.91

Order

Kiritahanga Clark and Levi Spooner must pay Nsvw Investment Limited $5,622.91 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 3 March 2026 under this application.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenants did not connect to the MS Teams link provided to them and nor did they connect via telephone as instructed in the Notice of Hearing sent to them. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
On 3 March 2026 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 7 March 2026, reimbursement of the filing fee and payment of the bond. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
This hearing was in respect of water rates only. I had adjourned the claim for water rates after the last hearing, at which the tenancy was terminated.

How much is owed for water rates?

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. Section 39 of the RTA is a provision which sets out the landlord and tenants “responsibility for outgoings”. Subsection 3 records:
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.
The effect of section 39(3) is that the tenant is only liable for outgoings in respect of the premises that are “exclusively attributable” to the specific tenancy. I note the District Court decision of Graeme Geraghty Leonie Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813, in which Judge de Ridder needed to consider a case where there was one power meter for both a main house and a semi-detached flat (the tenancy). The Tribunal had dismissed the claim for power charges because there was no separate meter to be able to determine what the power consumption to the tenancy was with precision. The District Court did not agree with that approach, and stated in the decision: [23] It is clear from the comments of the Adjudicator recorded at [18] above that the adjudicator took a strict legal approach and applied a strict application of the words “exclusively attributable” used in s 39(3) of the Act. There is an argument that whilst the strict legal application of s 39(3) means that Ms Raui does not have to pay for any of her power use, an application of the principle of determining the matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case, and considering whether that, “... strict application of the law gives rise to a fair result...,”5 might arguably lead to a result where Ms Raui should be paying something for her power and not, effectively, receiving it for free. Also by requiring the landlord to pay for the power clearly used by Ms Raui, the benefit of rental income from the property to the landlord is significantly reduced by the amount of the order. [24] In all the circumstances, where there is an argument that s 85 might apply to produce a different result and that provision has not been considered, then that could be said to amount to a procedural error which in turn has possibly resulted in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
Section 85 is a provision in the RTA which relates to decision making of the Tribunal, and confirms that the Tribunal should looks to a fair resolution of the dispute, taking into account substantial merits and justice, not necessarily strict legal rights and technicalities: 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.
What that means, is that the Tribunal could (if not should) look to an approach which deals with the water charges on a fair basis.
In this case the premises has a shared meter with another unit. The landlord divided the water rates between the premises based on number of occupants. I consider that was a fair approach.
In the previous order in relation to this tenancy I allocated all of the tenant’s payments to rent arrears, because of the difficulty in identifying how the landlord had dealt with the tenant’s payments. I have therefore ordered the full amount of water rates claimed, on the basis that any payment to the water rates was previously allocated to rent arrears.
The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord amended the claim to include cleaning and rubbish removal costs two days before the hearing. The tenant has not had sufficient notice of these claims, and I declined to hear them. The landlord may file a fresh application for compensation as they see fit

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5407412 — net $5,622.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5407412 dated 03/03/2026	$3,853.00	Previous order application 5407412 dated 03/03/2026
Water rates: to 16.2.26	$1,769.91	Water rates: to 16.2.26
Net award	$5,622.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,622.91

Order

Kiritahanga Clark and Levi Spooner must pay Nsvw Investment Limited $5,622.91 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 3 March 2026 under this application.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenants did not connect to the MS Teams link provided to them and nor did they connect via telephone as instructed in the Notice of Hearing sent to them. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
On 3 March 2026 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 7 March 2026, reimbursement of the filing fee and payment of the bond. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
This hearing was in respect of water rates only. I had adjourned the claim for water rates after the last hearing, at which the tenancy was terminated.

How much is owed for water rates?

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. Section 39 of the RTA is a provision which sets out the landlord and tenants “responsibility for outgoings”. Subsection 3 records:
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.
The effect of section 39(3) is that the tenant is only liable for outgoings in respect of the premises that are “exclusively attributable” to the specific tenancy. I note the District Court decision of Graeme Geraghty Leonie Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813, in which Judge de Ridder needed to consider a case where there was one power meter for both a main house and a semi-detached flat (the tenancy). The Tribunal had dismissed the claim for power charges because there was no separate meter to be able to determine what the power consumption to the tenancy was with precision. The District Court did not agree with that approach, and stated in the decision: [23] It is clear from the comments of the Adjudicator recorded at [18] above that the adjudicator took a strict legal approach and applied a strict application of the words “exclusively attributable” used in s 39(3) of the Act. There is an argument that whilst the strict legal application of s 39(3) means that Ms Raui does not have to pay for any of her power use, an application of the principle of determining the matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case, and considering whether that, “... strict application of the law gives rise to a fair result...,”5 might arguably lead to a result where Ms Raui should be paying something for her power and not, effectively, receiving it for free. Also by requiring the landlord to pay for the power clearly used by Ms Raui, the benefit of rental income from the property to the landlord is significantly reduced by the amount of the order. [24] In all the circumstances, where there is an argument that s 85 might apply to produce a different result and that provision has not been considered, then that could be said to amount to a procedural error which in turn has possibly resulted in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
Section 85 is a provision in the RTA which relates to decision making of the Tribunal, and confirms that the Tribunal should looks to a fair resolution of the dispute, taking into account substantial merits and justice, not necessarily strict legal rights and technicalities: 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.
What that means, is that the Tribunal could (if not should) look to an approach which deals with the water charges on a fair basis.
In this case the premises has a shared meter with another unit. The landlord divided the water rates between the premises based on number of occupants. I consider that was a fair approach.
In the previous order in relation to this tenancy I allocated all of the tenant’s payments to rent arrears, because of the difficulty in identifying how the landlord had dealt with the tenant’s payments. I have therefore ordered the full amount of water rates claimed, on the basis that any payment to the water rates was previously allocated to rent arrears.
The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord amended the claim to include cleaning and rubbish removal costs two days before the hearing. The tenant has not had sufficient notice of these claims, and I declined to hear them. The landlord may file a fresh application for compensation as they see fit

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407412 — Tenancy dispute at 20A Serwayne Place, Sunnyvale, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407412 — Tenancy dispute at 20A Serwayne Place, Sunnyvale, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions