[2019] NZTT Huntly 4157281
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT Huntly

APPLICANT:

April Nepia
Tenant

RESPONDENT:

Twin Rivers Real Estate Limited
Landlord

TENANCY ADDRESS: 63 River Road, Ngaruawahia 3720

ORDER
1. Twin Rivers Real Estate Limited must pay April Nepia $5,222.41 immediately,
calculated as shown in table below:

Description
Compensation: Electricity charged
Compensation: Property not reasonably secure
Total award
Bond
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Landlord

Tenant
$5,022.41
$200.00
$5,222.41
$1,400.00
$5,222.41

Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Burton of the Waahi Whaanui Trust
represented Ms Nepia and Ms Jelaca and Ms Gibson attended for the
landlord.
2. Ms Nepia sought a declaration that the 90-day notice issued by the landlord
was retaliatory, in response to a further 14-day notice served by Ms Burton on
Ms Nepia’s behalf. Ms Nepia moved out on 14 November 2018.
3. It is helpful to briefly set out the background to these events. The tenancy
premises is the front half of a two-flat property. Initially, one of Ms Nepia’s
adult daughters lived in each flat.
__________________________________________________________________________________
4157281
1

 4. On 10 August 2017, the daughter in the front flat gave 21-days’ notice to end
the tenancy. For reasons not material to this matter, she has been described
as “desperate” to get away from the premises. To enable her to depart
sooner, Ms Nepia, who was living with her sister’s family, moved into the front
flat two days later.
5. There were problems.
Keys
6. First, the property managers assumed that because Ms Nepia and her
daughter were related, the daughter would simply pass the keys on to Ms
Nepia. That did not happen. Ms Nepia then spent what she says was 38
weeks trying to get keys from the property managers so that she could secure
her house.
7. The landlord’s assumptions in this respect are understandable but not correct.
Even with the unusual commencement of the tenancy, it was not Ms Nepia’s
responsibility to chase up her daughter to collect the keys. Once Ms Nepia
had made it clear to the landlord that the key had not been handed over and
the property could not be reasonably secured, the landlord should have had
the locks replaced and charged that to the previous tenant. The landlords
were in breach of section 46 of the Act by failing to make the premises
reasonably secure.
8. I award Ms Nepia $200.00, which averages out to $5.20 per week for each
week the house was not reasonably secure.
Power
9. There was only on electricity meter for the premises, despite there being two
flats. The tenancy agreement signed by Ms Nepia’s daughter in the back flat
required her to “acknowledge” there was only one power meter. That
“acknowledgement” is meaningless in law. The tenants in each of the flats
were to arrange between themselves the payment of the power bill.
10. That is a breach of section 39(3) of the Act, because any utility that is to be
paid for by a tenant must be attributable to use by that tenant. One electricity
meter for two dwellings does not enable the tenant in each dwelling to identify
what power was “used” by them. Ms Nepia should not have been required to
pay for electricity as there was no meter accurately recording her usage.
11. In addition, at the commencement of Ms Nepia’s tenancy, the hot water
cylinder was leaking. That lead to a particularly high power bill, which, of
course, Ms Nepia should not have had to pay.
12. I have calculated the amount paid by Ms Nepia (on the basis of the
information she has provided), which is a total of $5022.41. I award that
amount.
__________________________________________________________________________________
4157281
2

 Maintenance
13. Ms Nepia had notified the landlord of concerns about the floors being unsafe,
and apparently rotting. There was also a broken window, and a hole in a wall.
She served a 14-day notice on the landlord. These were not addressed by,
and Ms Nepia seeks work orders from the Tribunal.
14. As the tenancy has ended, there is no point in my making work orders,
particularly as the landlord advises that the owner has taken the property off
the rental market, is intending to (or has already) renovated it, and will sell the
premises.
15. However, it is the 14-day notice that is the basis of Ms Nepia’s claim of
retaliatory notice.
Retaliatory notice
16. Where the Tribunal is satisfied that the giving of notice by the landlord was
motivated by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right,
power or remedy, it shall declare the retaliatory notice to be of no effect.
17. In such a case, the tenant must make the application within 28 working days
after receipt of the 90-day notice.
18. By my calculations, allowing two days for postal delivery within Ngaruawahia,
Ms Nepia’s application is out of time. This application was made on 25
September 2018. The notice is dated 10 August. I find the application was
two days beyond the 28-day notice.
19. If I am wrong in making that finding, I note two other matters that render such
a declaration pointless. Ms Nepia vacated the premises in November. The
owner has terminated her contract with the property management company
who are the landlords for the purposes of this hearing. They advise that the
owner intends to sell the property.
20. Further, Ms Nepia is profoundly concerned about the lack of security. She
says she would love to move back into the property, but only if she was
permitted to occupy the entire property. Her thoughts on this stem from her
concern about the internal access door between the two flats. She says it
cannot be locked and therefore anyone can enter her flat from the other. The
landlord says there is a lock on Ms Nepia’s side of the door. I do not need to
make a finding on that point.
21. Either way, the reality is that Ms Nepia cannot move back into the property
and even if she could, I cannot make an order granting her occupancy of both
flats.

__________________________________________________________________________________
4157281
3

 22. As to whether or not the notice was retaliatory, I find that it was. On 24 July
2018 Ms Burton emailed the landlord with a 14-day notice, listing a number of
concerns about the property. On 10 August, the 90-day notice was served.
23. The landlord was candid about some of the difficulties they experienced with
the owner, who does not live in the Waikato but insisted on sending her own
tradespeople from Auckland to do the work. The owner’s tradespeople would
not communicate with the landlord or the tenant about the timing of service
visits and would not go onto the property if the tenant had visitors.
24. While I can appreciate the difficulties of the landlord’s position, I am satisfied
on the balance of probabilities that this was a retaliatory notice. However, as I
noted above, I find the application was made out of time and the tenant has
vacated the premises.
Compensation for moving costs.
25. Ms Nepia claims damages for her moving costs. However long a tenancy
lasts, and whatever the circumstances of its’ ending, the tenant will eventually
incur moving costs. The Tribunal awards moving costs only in exceptional
circumstances, and I find that this is not one of them.
Exemplary damages for an unlawful property
26. Ms Nepia claims that the premises are unlawful, and that she should have all
her rent repaid. The basis of this claim is the nature of the property which,
while rented out as two separate properties, has only one power meter, one
post box, and one water meter.
27. Documents provided by the landlord show that in 1960, a single dwelling was
constructed on the property but that in or around 2004, alterations were
approved to enable two dwellings, each with a kitchen and a fire wall between
the two.
28. I find that, while there are aspects of the tenancy that have been conducted in
breach of the Act (the single power meter) the property is lawful. Even if it
had not been, there is no evidence to show that Ms Nepia has been in
anyway disadvantaged by the physical structure of the property. The issue of
the electricity meter has been addressed above.

M Poole
07 January 2019
__________________________________________________________________________________
4157281
4

  

4157281

Please read carefully:
SHOULD YOU REQUIRE ANY HELP OR INFORMATION REGARDING THIS MATTER
PLEASE CONTACT TENANCY SERVICES 0800 836 262.
MEHEMA HE PĀTAI TĀU E PĀ ANA KI TENEI TAKE, PĀTAI ATU KI TE TARI TENANCY
SERVICES 0800 836 262.
AFAI E TE MANA’OMIA SE FESOASOANI E UIGA I LENEI MATAUPU FA’AMOLEMOLE IA
FA’AFESO’OTAI’I LOA LE OFISA O LE TENANCY SERVICES 0800 836 262.

Rehearings:
You may make an application to the Tenancy Tribunal for a rehearing. Such an application
must be made within five working days of the order and must be lodged at the Court where
the dispute was heard.
The only ground for a rehearing of an application is that a substantial wrong or miscarriage
of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur. Being unhappy or dissatisfied with
the decision is not a ground for a rehearing. (See ‘Right of Appeal’ below).

Right of Appeal:
If you are dissatisfied with the decision of the Tenancy Tribunal, you may appeal to the
District Court. You only have 10 working days after the date of the decision to lodge a notice
of appeal.
However, you may not appeal to the District Court:
1. Against an interim order made by the Tribunal.
2. Against an order, or the failure to make an order, for the payment of money where the
amount that would be in dispute on appeal is less than $1,000.
3. Against a work order, or the failure to make a work order, where the value of the work
that would be in dispute on appeal is less than $1,000.
There is a $200.00 filing fee payable at the time of filing the appeal.

Enforcement:
Where the Tribunal made an order that needs to be enforced then the party seeking
enforcement should contact the Collections Office of the District Court on 0800 233 222 or go
to www.justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.

Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc:
Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It
may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your
means or seizure of your property.

__________________________________________________________________________________
4157281
6