What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5038528?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares the tenant liability for water rates for the period 21 May

How much money was awarded in case 5038528?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5038528?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12028935-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5038528?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares the tenant liability for water rates for the period 21 May

How much money was awarded in case 5038528?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5038528?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12028935-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

68 Clark Road, Papakura, Auckland 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5038528 — Leaks

Order

The Tribunal declares the tenant liability for water rates for the period 21 May 2023 to 22 April 2024 is $1,681.22.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. This was a continuation after a prior adjournment on 28 February 2025. Parts of that order are repeated in this order for completeness. An even earlier adjournment was made so this application has been “live” since 16 October 2024.
The landlord had initially sought termination due to the failure of the tenant to remedy significant water rates.
The issue that remains is a large water bill of $10,427.56, presented to the tenants in April 2024. The billing periods leading up to, including, and afterwards was summarised in a useful table by the landlord (below):
The concern remains today that the cause of the very high water bill is unexplained. The prior billing history is notable for the extended period of estimates, but also for the 2/3 rd reduction in the estimates during this period. Assuming the estimates are system generated via algorithm such an unexplained change is curious.
Previously I heard today that the meter was changed in November 2024. That new meter has been used to generate lower bills that do not appear to conform to such high usage as measured and later billed in the 23/24 period.
No leaks were detected by the landlord when investigated after the high bill. The law Outgoings
Section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) is the relevant section with respect to outgoings: (1)The landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that— (a) are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied; and are incurred for common facilities.... (3)The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. (4)Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), the tenant is responsible for the following charges, incurred during the tenancy, in respect of the premises:... (c) supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.
Therefore, tenants have the obligation to pay for their water usage. However, there is a corresponding implied obligation on a landlord to advise the tenant of the costs clearly and within a reasonable time frame. A tenant must be provided with the actual provider invoices and be able to clearly identify what is their usage. This has been detailed in precedent by the District Court which the Tenancy Tribunal is bound to follow, as discussed below.
Firstly, the case of Braganza v Saia (DC) CIV-2010-004-2024. In respect to the issue of a landlord's obligation to render water accounts promptly, the Judge held: "It is plainly incumbent on a landlord to set out with clarity what it is that he claims is due, as and when it falls due, and, when it comes to water, to provide the bills to the tenant as they fall due, so that the tenant may make any challenge to the supplier that he thinks is appropriate and make arrangements for payment in a timely fashion". [Paragraph 15].
Further, the Judge noted that: "If the tenant is to be asked to pay after the event with no opportunity to check the calculation, or to make provision for payment at the time, he is at a manifest disadvantage. It is down to the landlord to provide the detail as it falls due". [Paragraph 16].
The earlier case of Judge McElrea in Woollams v Simpson, CIV-2005-004- 1583, DC Auckland, 16 March 2006, is also relevant. In this case, the tenant had been presented at the end of her tenancy, with a claim for water rates for the three years of her tenancy. Judge McElrea stated: [11] In my view, there is an implied term in this tenancy agreement that the landlord would provide accounts to the tenant at regular intervals so as to enable repayment to be made. I imply such a term because it seems to me to be a necessary term to make commercial sense of the agreement. 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. ... [13] As a result, in my view, there is a requirement on the landlord seeking to rely on any such arrangement in the lease, that accounts be supplied quarterly or at least within a reasonable period such as within a few weeks after the account is due, unless some other arrangement is agreed between the parties. Failure to do that has predictable consequences for any tenant and apparently did have for this tenant. In my view, the implied term which I read into the Act and into this agreement is necessary in order to make the clause a workable one from a commercial point of view, and in order to decide this matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case.
Therefore, both the quantum and timeliness of water billing here requires consideration. Mitigation of loss
Section 49 RTA requires that where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
The previous order noted the owner is caught is a difficult position. It is liable to the water provider, Veolia, and I was told in February the owner is currently the subject of debt enforcement by that company for the large bill. I was also told that the company has declined to review the bill. Discussion appears to have focused on a possible leak as the underlying cause, if not actual occupant consumption.
Given the circumstances and evidence presented, I considered it necessary for the owner to exhaust any appropriate dispute resolution process regarding this very high bill before any final determination regarding it is made here. The tenants are not a party to the water supply contract and are unable to instigate such action. I am told the owner is aware of the previous order and expectations.
The more recent water bills have been presented to the tenant. They are not part of the historic dispute. The tenant has been paying $80.00 a week towards water rates and any arrears. The earlier request for termination of the tenancy for a failure to remedy the water bills was no longer sought and the tenancy continues.

Is the tenant liable for all water rates as charged?

The water billing history before the high invoice is dominated by a series of estimates. It was one year between actual readings. The meter was photographed at the commencement of the tenancy and it did not look in great condition at that time, with the landlord struggling to read it.
For reasons that remain unexplained, the estimates are significantly reduced during the second stage of monthly estimates, just before the high actual bill.
There was confirmation that there was no leak so the high consumption is likely a result of two possibilities. The first is excessive tenant consumption over an extended period of estimated readings, such that the actual reading in April 2024 captured this in a dramatic summation. The second is that there was a meter problem that makes the reading the cause, rather than any actual consumption. The swapping out of the meter later in 2024 has never been explained. Without some explanation it is assumed a fault was found or it was of such an age that it was replaced as part of some cycle. Either scenario serves to make one put some weighting on a possible metering issue.
I consider it reasonable to expect the owner to take every step to have a possible meter problem investigated. If such a problem was a cause it would not be fair to the tenant nor the owner to incur the significant costs as sought.
Disappointingly, since the February hearing the only evidence of escalation as a utility dispute was an email response to the agent from the Utilities Disputes organisation, dated 21 May 2025. It stated: Kia ora, Unfortunately, we do not have jurisdiction to deal with your complaint as Veolia is not part of our scheme. I have got in touch with Veolia and requested a bit of information regarding how they take complaints.
The landlord was unable to advise me of when the prior query was made, nor if a response on an alternate dispute resolution option was advised. No current resolution activity, other than this process, is underway.
I had asked the landlord previously to treat the demand for over $10,000 as if it was its own. I would expect some action given the prior inconsistent estimated billing history, unexpected large sum, and subsequent unexplained meter replacement. That this has not occurred is the owner’s choice. As foreshadowed in the hearing, it is time to bring this matter to a close. The owner has possible recourse with the utility (given the Utilities Dispute door appears closed) via an alternative pathway such as the Disputes Tribunal if they have appropriate jurisdiction.
I am not satisfied the landlord has been able to establish the full water rates are a cost for the tenant. As signalled at the hearing, I have revisited the billing during the period in question with the benefit of later month-to-month comparisons now available due to the time since lapsed. The later months have been calculated and billed from the new meter and the totals appear consistent.
The revised total the tenant must pay is $1,681.22 (see the table below). This is ordered by way of a declaration (see s 78(1)(a) RTA). The landlord is to revise the water summary accordingly and determine if water rates are still due, given the ongoing payments since. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. The landlord requested suppression in its application. I do not consider the landlord has been wholly or substantially successful. This matter has taken considerable time and the opportunity to escalate appropriately to seek a more definitive explanation has not been seized by the landlord/owner. Given that, I decline to make any order for suppression here.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5038528 — Leaks at 68 Clark Road, Papakura, Auckland 2113

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5038528 — Leaks at 68 Clark Road, Papakura, Auckland 2113

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for all water rates as charged?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for all water rates as charged?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions