What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9058524?

The tribunal order states: The application against the Body Corporate is withdrawn by the applicant.

How much money was awarded in case 9058524?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9058524?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9058524?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11199323-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9058524?

The tribunal order states: The application against the Body Corporate is withdrawn by the applicant.

How much money was awarded in case 9058524?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9058524?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9058524?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11199323-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9058524 — Unit Titles

Order

The application against the Body Corporate is withdrawn by the applicant.
If the matter is not able to be resolved by agreement the applicant may file a claim under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 against the landlord.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is a tenant in an apartment complex. She has lived in the complex since 2021 in more than one apartment.
The tenant’s current tenancy commenced on 20 July 2023.
The complex is supplied power by Smart Power and the tenant is invoiced directly for her monthly power.
The tenant noticed that the power invoices include a monthly charge of $11.22 which is recorded as an administration charge.
She queried this amount with the building management and was informed by email dated 26 July 2023 that the administration fee was charged by the Body Corporate as part of the Smart Power arrangement.
The tenant disputed liability for this amount and entered into communication with the building management, the body corporate and her property manager seeking to resolve matters with no success.
The tenant stated that she sought advice regarding filing a claim and was informed by the 0800 UTA number and advice services that she could not file against the landlord as they are not charging her the power administration costs. She was informed that as the body corporate is charging her then she should file a UTA application.
The tenant filed a UTA application in September 2024.
The Body Corporate denies that this is their charge and claims that the email sent by building management is an error and the $11.22 is an administration fee charged by Smart Power.
The tenant produced an invoice for a different unit headed “The Heritage by Smart Power” that charged the same administration fee when the variable charge was only 0.13.
Having heard from both parties today it is clear that this is a claim under section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and should be filed against the landlord. Section 39 RTA (1)(a) states that “The landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied.” It appears clear that the fee is a fixed utility charge which should be the responsibility of the landlord regardless of who sends the bill to the tenant.
The tenant stated that she has paid $134.64 per annum for the power fixed charges since she moved into the apartment complex in 2021.
The total for the current tenancy from July 2023 to December 2024 is 17 months x $11.22 = $190.24.
The tenant will seek reimbursement of this amount from her current landlord and seek that future fixed power charges are paid by the landlord.
Mr McConnell on behalf of the Body Corporate has offered to assist the tenant in making contact with her previous landlords in the complex.
The UTA application is withdrawn by the applicant tenant.
If the tenant wishes to seek a refund of the filing fee paid she may apply to MBIE who will consider and make a decision regarding this.
A further application may be filed by the tenant under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 if this matter cannot be resolved directly with the current and former landlords.
The Body Corporate sought costs in association with its involvement in these proceedings. Section 127 (1) of the UTA provides the following in respect of recovery of body corporate costs “This section applies if the body corporate does any repair, work, or act that it is required or authorised to do, by or under this Act, or by or under any other Act, and the repair, work, or act was rendered necessary by reason of any wilful or negligent act or omission on the part of, or any breach of the Act, the body corporate operational rules, or any regulations by, any unit owner or his or her tenant, lessee, licensee, or invitee.”
In this case the body corporate has been required to do work as a result of the tenant actions in bringing a claim, however, the Tribunal accepts in these circumstances the appropriate respondent to the tenant’s claim was not obvious and the tenant relied on information received to file the claim against the body corporate. As the claim has now been withdrawn by the tenant the Tribunal finds that there has been no wilful or negligent act or omission on the part of the tenant and accordingly no costs will be ordered.

Order

The application against the Body Corporate is withdrawn by the applicant.
If the matter is not able to be resolved by agreement the applicant may file a claim under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 against the landlord.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is a tenant in an apartment complex. She has lived in the complex since 2021 in more than one apartment.
The tenant’s current tenancy commenced on 20 July 2023.
The complex is supplied power by Smart Power and the tenant is invoiced directly for her monthly power.
The tenant noticed that the power invoices include a monthly charge of $11.22 which is recorded as an administration charge.
She queried this amount with the building management and was informed by email dated 26 July 2023 that the administration fee was charged by the Body Corporate as part of the Smart Power arrangement.
The tenant disputed liability for this amount and entered into communication with the building management, the body corporate and her property manager seeking to resolve matters with no success.
The tenant stated that she sought advice regarding filing a claim and was informed by the 0800 UTA number and advice services that she could not file against the landlord as they are not charging her the power administration costs. She was informed that as the body corporate is charging her then she should file a UTA application.
The tenant filed a UTA application in September 2024.
The Body Corporate denies that this is their charge and claims that the email sent by building management is an error and the $11.22 is an administration fee charged by Smart Power.
The tenant produced an invoice for a different unit headed “The Heritage by Smart Power” that charged the same administration fee when the variable charge was only 0.13.
Having heard from both parties today it is clear that this is a claim under section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and should be filed against the landlord. Section 39 RTA (1)(a) states that “The landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied.” It appears clear that the fee is a fixed utility charge which should be the responsibility of the landlord regardless of who sends the bill to the tenant.
The tenant stated that she has paid $134.64 per annum for the power fixed charges since she moved into the apartment complex in 2021.
The total for the current tenancy from July 2023 to December 2024 is 17 months x $11.22 = $190.24.
The tenant will seek reimbursement of this amount from her current landlord and seek that future fixed power charges are paid by the landlord.
Mr McConnell on behalf of the Body Corporate has offered to assist the tenant in making contact with her previous landlords in the complex.
The UTA application is withdrawn by the applicant tenant.
If the tenant wishes to seek a refund of the filing fee paid she may apply to MBIE who will consider and make a decision regarding this.
A further application may be filed by the tenant under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 if this matter cannot be resolved directly with the current and former landlords.
The Body Corporate sought costs in association with its involvement in these proceedings. Section 127 (1) of the UTA provides the following in respect of recovery of body corporate costs “This section applies if the body corporate does any repair, work, or act that it is required or authorised to do, by or under this Act, or by or under any other Act, and the repair, work, or act was rendered necessary by reason of any wilful or negligent act or omission on the part of, or any breach of the Act, the body corporate operational rules, or any regulations by, any unit owner or his or her tenant, lessee, licensee, or invitee.”
In this case the body corporate has been required to do work as a result of the tenant actions in bringing a claim, however, the Tribunal accepts in these circumstances the appropriate respondent to the tenant’s claim was not obvious and the tenant relied on information received to file the claim against the body corporate. As the claim has now been withdrawn by the tenant the Tribunal finds that there has been no wilful or negligent act or omission on the part of the tenant and accordingly no costs will be ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9058524 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9058524 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions