What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5021216 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5021216?

Water Rates: $8,265.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5021216?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5021216?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11218102-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5021216 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5021216?

Water Rates: $8,265.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5021216?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5021216?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11218102-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5021216 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5021216 — net $8,265.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$8,265.00	11. In considering the evidence, the Landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the exact amount of the water rates arrears.
Net award	$8,265.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,265.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jasmine Harrison must pay [The landlord/s] $8,265.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 13 December 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone. The Tenant attended with her Financial Mentor Mr Gillgren to assist her.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and water rates arrears. At the hearing, the Landlord withdrew their application for rent arrears.
When an Applicant brings an application before the Tribunal, the Applicant’s role is to prove their claim. This means they need to bring all their evidence in support to the hearing to prove their claim. It is not for the Tribunal to extract this evidence from the Applicant.
By way of background, the tenancy began on 24 October 2020. From the start, the Tenant and her brother agreed that he would pay the water bill. The water bill was sent directly to the Tenant, so the Landlord was unaware of any outstanding payments until they inquired with Watercare around August 2024. They found that the water bills had never been paid. In September 2024, the Landlord received an invoice for $9,204.82. The Tenant agreed to pay this amount using her KiwiSaver, but later claimed the charges were incorrect, arguing that the water leak at the property was not taken into account.
The Landlord claimed that the Tenant owed $9,292.98, which included the current invoice due in January 2025. They provided a screenshot from the Watercare app, which the Tenant acknowledged receiving. Additionally, the Landlord submitted a Watercare invoice dated 24 September 2024 showing an outstanding balance of $9,204.82. However, the Landlord did not provide a breakdown of how this amount was calculated since the start of the tenancy, whether fixed charges had been paid, or whether a water leak allowance had been applied.
The Tenant disputed the claimed amount, arguing that the Landlord had not removed fixed charges, the water leak allowance, or late charges and debt collection fees. The Tenant presented a summary of data from the start of the tenancy, showing the breakdown of charges, the removal of the water leak allowance, the removal of fixed charges, and how the fees were incurred. The Tenant also proposed paying the water bill in instalments each month and attempting to clear the debt through a third party. However, the third party could not consider the request until after February 2025. The Landlord insisted that the debt be cleared as soon as possible so did not agree to the amount the Tenant offered to pay. The law
A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or to their use of the facilities (see s 39(3) RTA). Therefore, tenants are only liable for the electricity, gas, telephone and internet they use, and for water charges based on consumption (s 39(4) RTA). They are not liable for fixed water charges.
Where utilities are shared between more than one dwelling or building, the landlord will not be able calculate a tenant’s share of outgoings without a separate water meter or check meter. A tenant is therefore not liable to pay for electricity charges on a meter shared with other premises (Green v McGregor [2015] NZTT Waitakere 1292). Even if the tenant’s electricity usage can be calculated, a strict application of s 39(3) RTA means they will not be liable for fixed line charges, as they are not exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises.
Section 11(1) RTA provides that any agreement or arrangement that is inconsistent with any provision of the Act is of no effect. However, the District Court has held that section 85 RTA should be considered when deciding whether to strictly apply s 39(3) and order a full refund of utilities paid by the tenant (Geraghty and Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813). In that case, the District Court directed a rehearing of the original order to refund $6,432.48. At the rehearing the tenant confirmed she was not seeking a full refund of her electricity payments, and the Tribunal found that a strict application of s 39(3) would produce an unfair and unjust result.
In relation to water charges, the District Court held in Woollams v Simpson (DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1583, 16 March 2006), that there was an implied term in the tenancy agreement that the landlord would provide water accounts at regular intervals, and within a reasonable time, to enable payment to be made. The Court determined that, because the landlord had failed to do so, the tenant was only required to pay the last two accounts, which covered a period of just over four months.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the exact amount of the water rates arrears. Specifically, there was no breakdown showing how the debt accumulated, whether the Landlord paid any fixed water charges during the tenancy, the amount of any leak allowance credited, and they failed to provide the other invoices from Watercare. Although the Tribunal could dismiss the Landlord’s application due to this lack of information, it is noted that the parties reached an agreement at the hearing for the Tenant to pay $8,265.00.
I have taken into consideration the fact that both parties agreed that no water payments were made since the start of the tenancy. While it is unacceptable for the Tenant to have relied on her brother to pay the debt without following up on this, the responsibility for paying outgoings rests with the Tenant. Although the Landlord could have sought termination by issuing a notice to remedy due to the breach by the Tenant, they have allowed the tenancy to continue.
I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the Tenant owed at least $8,265.00, and an Order will be made for this amount. The Landlord, as the Applicant, should have provided all relevant invoices and a clear summary of the amounts incurred each month. It is their responsibility in these proceedings to provide this evidence.
As the Landlord has been substantially successful, name suppression is granted to the Landlord.
As the Tenant has not been successful, name suppression is not granted to the Tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5021216 — net $8,265.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$8,265.00	11. In considering the evidence, the Landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the exact amount of the water rates arrears.
Net award	$8,265.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,265.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jasmine Harrison must pay [The landlord/s] $8,265.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 13 December 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone. The Tenant attended with her Financial Mentor Mr Gillgren to assist her.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and water rates arrears. At the hearing, the Landlord withdrew their application for rent arrears.
When an Applicant brings an application before the Tribunal, the Applicant’s role is to prove their claim. This means they need to bring all their evidence in support to the hearing to prove their claim. It is not for the Tribunal to extract this evidence from the Applicant.
By way of background, the tenancy began on 24 October 2020. From the start, the Tenant and her brother agreed that he would pay the water bill. The water bill was sent directly to the Tenant, so the Landlord was unaware of any outstanding payments until they inquired with Watercare around August 2024. They found that the water bills had never been paid. In September 2024, the Landlord received an invoice for $9,204.82. The Tenant agreed to pay this amount using her KiwiSaver, but later claimed the charges were incorrect, arguing that the water leak at the property was not taken into account.
The Landlord claimed that the Tenant owed $9,292.98, which included the current invoice due in January 2025. They provided a screenshot from the Watercare app, which the Tenant acknowledged receiving. Additionally, the Landlord submitted a Watercare invoice dated 24 September 2024 showing an outstanding balance of $9,204.82. However, the Landlord did not provide a breakdown of how this amount was calculated since the start of the tenancy, whether fixed charges had been paid, or whether a water leak allowance had been applied.
The Tenant disputed the claimed amount, arguing that the Landlord had not removed fixed charges, the water leak allowance, or late charges and debt collection fees. The Tenant presented a summary of data from the start of the tenancy, showing the breakdown of charges, the removal of the water leak allowance, the removal of fixed charges, and how the fees were incurred. The Tenant also proposed paying the water bill in instalments each month and attempting to clear the debt through a third party. However, the third party could not consider the request until after February 2025. The Landlord insisted that the debt be cleared as soon as possible so did not agree to the amount the Tenant offered to pay. The law
A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or to their use of the facilities (see s 39(3) RTA). Therefore, tenants are only liable for the electricity, gas, telephone and internet they use, and for water charges based on consumption (s 39(4) RTA). They are not liable for fixed water charges.
Where utilities are shared between more than one dwelling or building, the landlord will not be able calculate a tenant’s share of outgoings without a separate water meter or check meter. A tenant is therefore not liable to pay for electricity charges on a meter shared with other premises (Green v McGregor [2015] NZTT Waitakere 1292). Even if the tenant’s electricity usage can be calculated, a strict application of s 39(3) RTA means they will not be liable for fixed line charges, as they are not exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises.
Section 11(1) RTA provides that any agreement or arrangement that is inconsistent with any provision of the Act is of no effect. However, the District Court has held that section 85 RTA should be considered when deciding whether to strictly apply s 39(3) and order a full refund of utilities paid by the tenant (Geraghty and Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813). In that case, the District Court directed a rehearing of the original order to refund $6,432.48. At the rehearing the tenant confirmed she was not seeking a full refund of her electricity payments, and the Tribunal found that a strict application of s 39(3) would produce an unfair and unjust result.
In relation to water charges, the District Court held in Woollams v Simpson (DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1583, 16 March 2006), that there was an implied term in the tenancy agreement that the landlord would provide water accounts at regular intervals, and within a reasonable time, to enable payment to be made. The Court determined that, because the landlord had failed to do so, the tenant was only required to pay the last two accounts, which covered a period of just over four months.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the exact amount of the water rates arrears. Specifically, there was no breakdown showing how the debt accumulated, whether the Landlord paid any fixed water charges during the tenancy, the amount of any leak allowance credited, and they failed to provide the other invoices from Watercare. Although the Tribunal could dismiss the Landlord’s application due to this lack of information, it is noted that the parties reached an agreement at the hearing for the Tenant to pay $8,265.00.
I have taken into consideration the fact that both parties agreed that no water payments were made since the start of the tenancy. While it is unacceptable for the Tenant to have relied on her brother to pay the debt without following up on this, the responsibility for paying outgoings rests with the Tenant. Although the Landlord could have sought termination by issuing a notice to remedy due to the breach by the Tenant, they have allowed the tenancy to continue.
I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the Tenant owed at least $8,265.00, and an Order will be made for this amount. The Landlord, as the Applicant, should have provided all relevant invoices and a clear summary of the amounts incurred each month. It is their responsibility in these proceedings to provide this evidence.
As the Landlord has been substantially successful, name suppression is granted to the Landlord.
As the Tenant has not been successful, name suppression is not granted to the Tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5021216 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5021216 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions