Tenant Wins Reimbursement for Directly Paid Utilities
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the landlord must reimburse the tenant $376.71 for water and electricity charges that the tenant had paid directly. The landlord had received these funds from the bond but was ordered to return them since they were not claimed.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to reimbursement for water and electricity charges that they have paid directly.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the landlord to reimburse the tenant $376.71 for water and electricity charges.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the landlord to reimburse the tenant $376.71 for water and electricity charges that the tenant had paid directly. The landlord had initially received these funds from the bond but was required to return them as they were not claimed.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4962515 1
[2025] NZTT 4962515, 4974853
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [Tenancy address suppressed]
ORDER
1. An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant name and identifying details.
2. [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $376.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Description Tenant Reimburse Water Rates $47.29 Reimburse Electricity Charges $329.42 Total award $376.71 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $376.71
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4962515 2
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended a hearing today.
2. This was a partial rehearing of applications heard in November 2024.
3. On 4 December 2024, the Tribunal issued an order in respect of these applications. The tenant was ordered to pay the landlord total compensation of $1,269.38 from the Bond. That amount included awards of $47.29 for water rates and $329.42 for electricity charges. Paragraph 12 stated:
“The landlord has claimed $47.29 for unpaid water rates to 29 April 2024. This figure excludes the fixed waste water charge. The landlord has claimed $329.42 for unpaid power bills. The claims are proven.”
4. The Bond has been disbursed to the parties as directed in the 4 December Order.
5. On 6 December 2024, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the basis that the landlord did not apply for water rates and electricity and the tenant had paid those costs directly.
6. On 6 December, the Tribunal granted a partial rehearing of the 4 December 2024 Order as follows:
“The application for rehearing in relation to orders for payment of water rates and bills only is granted on the papers. All other orders remain unchanged.”
7. The Landlord has not applied for a rehearing or appealed either the 4 or 6 December Orders.
8. So, the only issue before me today is whether the landlord has claims for water rates and/or electricity charges and, if so, were those claims proved.
9. It was common ground between the parties that the tenant had paid the outgoings at the premises; water rates and electricity. The landlord confirmed that it did not claim water rates or electricity charges from the tenant. It follows that the $376.71 awarded, and paid to the landlord from the bond, must be reimbursed to the tenant. Put another way, the landlord has received $376.71 from the Bond, which it did not claim so should not have been awarded to it.
10. The landlord suggested that the “electricity charges” awarded in the 4 December 2024 Order could have been for its claim for electrical and gas fitting labour in relation to a hob. That is not correct. The claim for costs in relation to the hob were clearly dismissed at paragraph 40 to 42 of the 4 December Order. The 6 December Order records that the rehearing is in relation to “power bills”; a reference to the amount awarded under para 12 of the 4 December Order.
11. The landlord raised multiple issues with the 4 December Order and expressed dissatisfaction with the process and the outcome. I could not consider those
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4962515 3
issues. The landlord did not apply for a rehearing of, or appeal, the 4 December Order.
[NAME] 04 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4962515 4
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to 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.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4962515 5
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant was reimbursed for water rates because they had already paid these costs directly.
- The tenant was reimbursed for electricity charges because they had already paid these costs directly.
- The landlord confirmed they did not claim water rates or electricity charges from the tenant.
- The previous award to the landlord for water and electricity was incorrect because the landlord did not claim these costs.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's suggestion that "electricity charges" referred to a claim for electrical and gas fitting labour was incorrect.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the landlord to reimburse the tenant $376.71 for water and electricity charges.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the landlord should reimburse the tenant for water and electricity charges that the tenant had paid directly.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the landlord must reimburse the tenant because the tenant had paid the water and electricity charges directly, and the landlord had not claimed these expenses.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant had paid the water and electricity charges directly, and the landlord had not claimed these expenses.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may be entitled to reimbursement for water and electricity charges if they have paid them directly and the landlord has not claimed these expenses.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.