What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4751332 about?

The tribunal order states: Melisa Mitchell must pay Nid Renters Limited t/as NID RENTERS $2,283.44

How much money was awarded in case 4751332?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2,263.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4751332?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4751332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9930015-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4751332 about?

The tribunal order states: Melisa Mitchell must pay Nid Renters Limited t/as NID RENTERS $2,283.44

How much money was awarded in case 4751332?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2,263.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4751332?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4751332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9930015-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3A Seacrest Drive, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4751332 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

3A Seacrest Drive, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4751332 — Tenancy dispute | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4751332 — net $2,283.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$2,263.00	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,283.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,283.44

Claims and awards for application 4751332 — net $2,283.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates

Amount: $2,263.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $2,283.44

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,283.44

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Water Rates

Order

Melisa Mitchell must pay Nid Renters Limited t/as NID RENTERS $2,283.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenancy began on 8 May 2021 and ended on 4 October 2023.
The landlord’s application seeks water rates for the full period of the tenancy.
Watercare sent the monthly water rates invoices to the tenancy address. The owner of the property had lived in the premises before the start of this tenancy.
The tenant did not make the owner or property manager aware of the invoices. The letters remained unopened at the premises, and the property manager discovered them after the tenancy ended.
The landlord’s application seeks the consumption portion of those invoices, which totals $2,263.00.
The hearing took place by phone today, 8 February 2024.
Ms Bae represented the landlord at the hearing. I was not able to contact Ms Mitchell on the phone number provided in the application. Ms Bae stated that she has also been unable to contact Ms Mitchell since the end of the tenancy.
Tenants are liable to pay for outgoings (including water) that they consume during the tenancy 1 .
Landlords have a duty to invoice tenants regularly for water rates.
In Woollams v Simpson 2 , the landlord failed to issue regular water invoices to the tenant, allowing a balance of $2,299.55 to accumulate by the time that the tenancy ended. The District Court (Judge McElrea) held that the landlord was only entitled to recover $215.40 from the tenant.
Judge McElrea commented that it is unjust for landlord to present a tenant with a large lump sum bill for many months / years of water rates: How can a tenant be expected to pay for a regular charge such as a quarterly charge unless it is told the amount of the charge from time to time? That makes nonsense of any attempt to budget, which presumably most tenants have to do, whether they be commercial or residential tenants. It makes nonsense of any proper concept of financial management as between parties to a commercial arrangement.
In the Woollams case, the failure to provide regular invoices was due to an administrative error by the landlord.
That is not the case here. Although it is unfortunate that the property manager did not notice that there were no water invoices, the far more significant failure was by the tenant, who physically received the Watercare invoices but failed to pass them on.
Therefore I find that the reasoning in Woollams does not apply in this instance. There is no reasonable basis to reduce the tenant’s responsibility to pay for water that she used during the tenancy.
The amount of water rates outstanding is proven.
The landlord has been successful in this application and I must also award the landlord the filing fee for the application 3 . 1 Section 39 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 DC Auckland CIV:2005-004-1583, 16 March 2006 3 Section 102(4) RTA
The bond was distributed at the end of the tenancy, before the landlord became aware of the outstanding water rates.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4751332 — net $2,283.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$2,263.00	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,283.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,283.44

Claims and awards for application 4751332 — net $2,283.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates

Amount: $2,263.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $2,283.44

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,283.44

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Water Rates

Order

Melisa Mitchell must pay Nid Renters Limited t/as NID RENTERS $2,283.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenancy began on 8 May 2021 and ended on 4 October 2023.
The landlord’s application seeks water rates for the full period of the tenancy.
Watercare sent the monthly water rates invoices to the tenancy address. The owner of the property had lived in the premises before the start of this tenancy.
The tenant did not make the owner or property manager aware of the invoices. The letters remained unopened at the premises, and the property manager discovered them after the tenancy ended.
The landlord’s application seeks the consumption portion of those invoices, which totals $2,263.00.
The hearing took place by phone today, 8 February 2024.
Ms Bae represented the landlord at the hearing. I was not able to contact Ms Mitchell on the phone number provided in the application. Ms Bae stated that she has also been unable to contact Ms Mitchell since the end of the tenancy.
Tenants are liable to pay for outgoings (including water) that they consume during the tenancy 1 .
Landlords have a duty to invoice tenants regularly for water rates.
In Woollams v Simpson 2 , the landlord failed to issue regular water invoices to the tenant, allowing a balance of $2,299.55 to accumulate by the time that the tenancy ended. The District Court (Judge McElrea) held that the landlord was only entitled to recover $215.40 from the tenant.
Judge McElrea commented that it is unjust for landlord to present a tenant with a large lump sum bill for many months / years of water rates: How can a tenant be expected to pay for a regular charge such as a quarterly charge unless it is told the amount of the charge from time to time? That makes nonsense of any attempt to budget, which presumably most tenants have to do, whether they be commercial or residential tenants. It makes nonsense of any proper concept of financial management as between parties to a commercial arrangement.
In the Woollams case, the failure to provide regular invoices was due to an administrative error by the landlord.
That is not the case here. Although it is unfortunate that the property manager did not notice that there were no water invoices, the far more significant failure was by the tenant, who physically received the Watercare invoices but failed to pass them on.
Therefore I find that the reasoning in Woollams does not apply in this instance. There is no reasonable basis to reduce the tenant’s responsibility to pay for water that she used during the tenancy.
The amount of water rates outstanding is proven.
The landlord has been successful in this application and I must also award the landlord the filing fee for the application 3 . 1 Section 39 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 DC Auckland CIV:2005-004-1583, 16 March 2006 3 Section 102(4) RTA
The bond was distributed at the end of the tenancy, before the landlord became aware of the outstanding water rates.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4751332 — Tenancy dispute at 3A Seacrest Drive, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4751332 — Tenancy dispute at 3A Seacrest Drive, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions