What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5154154 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 5154154?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $569.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5154154?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5154154?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11841924-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5154154 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 5154154?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $569.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5154154?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5154154?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11841924-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

14A Shankill Place, East Tamaki, Auckland 2013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5154154 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5154154 — net $542.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$569.89		Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$569.89	$27.00
Net award	$542.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$542.89

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5154154 — net $542.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$569.89		Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$569.89	$27.00
Net award	$542.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$542.89

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenant must pay the landlord $542.89 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 7 March 2025 and 15 April 2025.
The tenant claims they do not have to pay the full amount contained in some water rates invoices issued between 10 February 2023 and 14 January 2025. This is because the tenant claims there was a leak in the toilet which caused some water rates invoices to be higher than usual.
The landlord strongly denies there was ever a leak in the toilet and submits the tenant is responsible for paying the full amount contained in all of the water rates invoices.
Section 39(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states: 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.
Section 39(4) RTA confirms that, where the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption, then the supply of water is an outgoing the tenant must pay under section 39(3) RTA.
Watercare is the relevant water rates authority for this tenancy address. Watercare charges for water on the basis of consumption. Therefore, the starting point is that the tenant is responsible for paying all water rates invoices issued by Watercare during the tenancy. An important qualifier to this is if there was a leak in the toilet. Water that is consumed as a result of a leak, is not “exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities”.
To succeed with their claim, the tenant must prove that there was a leak in the toilet on the balance of probabilities. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
A lot of evidence and submissions were presented by both parties at the hearing. Whilst this decision might not refer to all of it, the parties can be assured that I have considered it as part of this decision.

WATER RATES INVOICES

The following table records the water rates invoices submitted at the hearing. It also notes the invoices the tenant has paid and not paid. Invoice datePeriod of water consumption the invoice relates to Amount charged to tenant (less fixed fee) Type of reading (estimate or actual) Paid by the tenant or not 10/02/2023 12/01/2023 – 10/02/2023$38.83EstimatePaid to Watercare 13/03/2023 10/02/2023 – 11/03/2023$146.76Actual Not paid 12/04/2023 11/03/2023 – 12/04/2023$103.60EstimateNot paid 15/05/2023 12/04/2023 – 12/05/2023$82.04Actual Paid to landlord 12/06/2023 12/05/2023 – 12/06/2023$90.63Estimate Paid to Watercare 18/07/2023 12/06/2023 – 17/07/2023$103.60Estimate Not paid 10/08/2023 17/07/2023 – 10/08/2023$80.34Estimate Paid to Watercare 14/09/2023 10/08/2023 – 13/09/2023 $56.72Actual Paid to Watercare 10/10/2023 13/09/2023 – 10/10/2023$75.63Actual Paid $300.00 to Watercare 13/11/2023 10/10/2023 – 10/11/2023 $80.34Actual Paid to Watercare 11/12/2023 10/11/2023 – 09/12/2023$80.34Estimate Paid to Watercare 15/01/2024 09/12/2023 – 12/01/2024$146.55Actual Not paid 12/02/2024 12/01/2024 – 12/02/2024 $113.44Estimate Not paid 14/03/2024 12/02/2024 – 12/03/2024$554.09 Actual Not charged to tenant (water leak) 10/04/2024 12/03/2024 – 10/04/2024$103.99Estimate Not paid 13/05/2024 10/04/2024 – 11/05/2024$9.46 Actual Not paid 12/06/2024 11/05/2024 – 12/06/2024 $203.26Estimate Not paid 15/07/2024 12/06/2024 – 12/07/2024$47.30 Actual Not paid 9/08/2024 13/07/2024 – 09/08/2024 $70.94Estimate Not paid 13/09/2024 09/08/2024 – 12/09/2024$76.02Actual Paid to Watercare 10/10/2024 12/09/2024 – 10/10/2024$65.86Estimate Paid to landlord 12/11/2024 10/10/2024 – 09/11/2024$70.94Actual Paid to landlord 10/12/ 2024 09/11/2024 – 10/12/2024 $70.94Estimate Paid to landlord 14/01/2025 10/12/2024 – 13/01/2025$65.86Actual Paid to landlord Total (excluding invoice dated 14/03/2024): $1,983.39 Total paid by tenant: $1,158.86

WAS THERE A LEAKING TOILET?

Tenant’s evidence and submissions

The tenant gave evidence that they live at the property with their two children. The tenant works and their two children attend school. Therefore, the tenant claims that no one is at home for most of the time during the week and it is unusual that their water bill should ever exceed $100.00 per month.
The tenancy began on 21 December 2022. In early 2023, the tenant began receiving some water bills that they considered to be quite high. These were as follows: a. 13/03/2023: $146.76 (actual reading) b. 12/04/2023:$103.60 (estimated reading)
The tenant continued to receive water invoices throughout 2023 as follows: a. 15/05/2023:$82.04 (actual reading) b. 12/06/2023:$90.63 (estimated reading) c. 18/07/2023:$103.60 (estimated reading)
The tenant gave evidence that they raised the invoice dated 18 July 2023 with their landlord who advised them that the cost of water had increased.
The tenant continued to receive water rates invoices for 2023 and early 2024 as follows: a. 13/11/2023:$80.34 (actual reading) b. 11/12/2023:$80.34 (estimated reading) c. 11/12/2023:$80.34 (estimated reading) d. 15/01/2024: $146.55 (actual reading) e. 12/02/2024:$113.44 (estimated reading)
The tenant gave evidence that their family was overseas from 24 December 2023 – 29 January 2024. The tenant claims no water would have been consumed during this period, yet they received relatively high water rates invoices for this period of time.
The tenant gave evidence that they contacted the landlord in late January 2024, raising the possibility of a leaking toilet contributing to high water rates invoices.
On 30 January 2024, the tenant claims the landlord visited the property to inspect the toilet. The tenant gave evidence that the landlord advised there was nothing wrong with the toilet.
Discussions between the landlord and tenant regarding the possibility of a leaking toilet continued. On 20 February 2024, the tenant sent the landlord a video of the water meter, which indicated there was a leak somewhere at the premises. The landlord attended the address on an urgent basis and repaired a leak in the main water pipes underground in the driveway.
The landlord received a water rates invoice dated 14 March 2024 covering the period 12/02/2024 – 12/03/2024. The landlord did not charge this invoice to the tenant, accepting that there was leak in the main water pipes during this period of time.
The tenant gave evidence that they contacted the landlord on 23 February 2024 advising that there was an issue with the water tank in the toilet, which was continuously emptying and refilling.
At the hearing on 17 April 2025, the tenant submitted a short video of the toilet, which they say was taken on 27 February 2024. The video shows water dripping at a relatively rapid rate from the back of the toilet.
The tenant gave evidence that on 9 March 2024, they contacted the landlord again asking them to inspect the toilet, because the water tank kept emptying and refilling when it was not being used.
On 11 March 2024, the tenant claims the landlord visited the address and replaced a part in the toilet. The tenant gave evidence that after the landlord left, the tank emptied and refilled again. They contacted the landlord who advised that there was nothing wrong with the toilet and sent the tenant an invoice for $115.00 for their time and attendance.
The tenant continued to receive what they considered to be relatively high water rates invoices in April 2024 and June 2024 as follows: a. 10 April 2024:$103.99 b. 12 June 2024: $203.36
The tenant gave evidence that they organised for a plumber, known as “Sayed”, to visit the address on 9 July 2024.
At the hearing on 7 March 2025, I adjourned to allow the tenant an opportunity to call the plumber as a witness or submit any evidence provided by them.
At the hearing on 15 April 2025, the tenant gave evidence that Sayed was overseas and unavailable for the hearing.
The tenant claims Sayed is a plumber and he visited the address on 9 July 2024 to complete a test to determine if there was a leak in the toilet. This test involved him holding a piece of toilet paper against the back of the toilet bowl to see if it got wet or not. The tenant submitted a video, which they say is of the Sayed conducting this test on 9 July 2024. The video shows the toilet paper getting wet. The tenant submits this proves there was a leak in the toilet.
The tenant gave further evidence that Sayed advised them that there was a problem with the half flush on the toilet. The tenant gave evidence that he also fixed the seal on the cannister. The tenant submitted text messages sent by Sayed. These messages are in Farsi, which the tenant translated through Google Translate. A Farsi interpreter at the hearing on 17 April 2025 confirmed the translations were accurate. One text message states: “Hello, I explained it here. The valve flushing probably isn’t working well, especially for the half-flush. That’s why I recommend using the full flush. And if you used the half-flush, tap on it again if it’s leaking. Or it’s possible the cannister wasn’t seated [sealed] correctly and now it’s seated [sealed] completely.”
Since Sayed visited the address on 9 July 2024, the tenant claims they have not received any water rates invoices over $100.00. The tenant claims this further proves that there was a leak in the toilet.
At the hearing on 17 April 2025, the tenant also submitted photographs of the water meter taken by them.
The first set of photographs were taken on 11 April 2024 and 16 April 2024. The tenant gave evidence that they turned the valve at the back of the toilet off on 11 April 2024 before leaving to go to Australia. The tenant claims that turning the valve at the back of the toilet off would have stopped any water running into the toilet. The tenant returned to New Zealand on 16 April 2024.
The photograph of the water meter taken on 11 April 2024 shows a reading of 29850619.
The photograph of the water meter taken on 16 April 2024 shows a reading of 29850619.
The tenant also submitted photographs of the water meter taken on 5 April 2024 when the tenant did not turn the valve at the back of the toilet off. The first photograph taken in the morning shows a reading of 29828009. The second photograph taken in the evening and shows a reading of 29828207.
The tenant gave evidence that the first photograph was taken in the morning before they left for work and the second photograph was taken in the evening when they returned home. The tenant claims no one was at home in between the time that the two photographs were taken. The tenant submits that the increase to the water meter reader indicates there was a leak in the toilet. Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord strongly denies that there has ever been a leak in the toilet.
The landlord accepts that there was a leak in the main water pipes, which they fixed on 20 February 2024. The landlord did not charge the tenant for the water rates invoice issued on 14 March 2024.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant has complained about various issues to do with water, which are not legitimate. The landlord claims the alleged leaking toilet is another example of this.
The landlord gave evidence that they attended the address after receiving a complaint from the tenant about the toilet leaking. The landlord completed a test where they put a piece of toilet paper at the back of the toilet. The landlord claims the toilet paper was slightly wet, indicating there was a minor leak. As a result, the landlord changed the cistern seal, which he believes fixed the issue. The landlord did not give evidence of the date this occurred however, I note the tenant’s evidence that the landlord first inspected the toilet on 30 January 2024.
The landlord gave evidence that shortly thereafter, the tenant contacted them again complaining about the toilet leaking. The landlord returned to the address to investigate the issue and determined there was nothing wrong with the toilet however, out of an abundance of caution, the landlord claims they changed multiple parts inside the toilet. Before leaving the address, the landlord asked the tenant how much water they wanted so the landlord could set the water volume for flushing. The landlord set the water level at that requested by the tenant and asked the tenant to contact them if the level changed.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant contacted them again shortly thereafter complaining about a leaking toilet. The landlord visited the address and investigated the issue but did not find any leak. Frustrated at the fact that the landlord believed the tenant was complaining about a defect that did not exist, the landlord sent the tenant an invoice for $115.00 for their time and attendance.
The landlord accepts that they never sent a professionally qualified plumber to investigate the complaint of a leaking toilet by the tenant. The landlord submits that they have the same level of skill as a professionally qualified plumber. The landlord gave evidence that they have been in the business of building and maintaining properties for approximately 20 years. The landlord claims a leaking toilet is a simple issue, which they could easily identify and fix themselves.
The landlord submits that the reason for the high water rates invoices is because they are the result of actual water meter readings, rather than estimates.
The landlord submitted a table of calculations, which they say shows that even though the tenant was charged over $100.00 for some months, on average, they have been charged $79.00 per month for their water consumption.
The landlord submits that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the person the tenant referred to in their evidence as a “plumber” is in fact a plumber. The landlord highlights the fact that the tenant did not call the plumber as a witness and no information was given confirming the plumber’s full name or qualifications.
The landlord gave evidence that the person in the video completing the test on the toilet submitted by the tenant is the landlord, not the person the tenant claims is a plumber.
The landlord submits that the Tribunal cannot rely on the photographs of the water meter taken by the tenant in April 2024 as accurate. In respect of the photographs dated 5 April 2024, the landlord claims the tenant could have taken the first photograph of the water meter when the water was off and then ran some water before taking the second. The landlord claims the difference in water meter readings on this date does not prove there was a leak in the toilet.
The landlord made a number of submissions aimed at the tenant’s credibility and claims the Tribunal cannot trust any evidence given or submissions made by the tenant. Analysis Water rates invoice dated 13 March 2023
This tenancy began on 21 December 2022. The first actual water meter reading taken during this tenancy was completed on 12 January 2023 and the invoice was for a total of $38.83. The second actual water meter reading taken during this tenancy was on 11 March 2023. An invoice dated 13 March 2023 was sent to the tenant for a total of $146.76.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that $146.76 is higher than the typical water rates invoice the tenant usually receives however, this does not automatically lead to the conclusion that there was most likely a leak in the toilet at the time. When one tenancy ends and another one begins, there is usually an adjustment period where the water usage changes. If the previous tenant used less water than the new tenant, this often results in the new tenant receiving a higher water rates invoice than is usual following their first or second actual water meter reading.
In this case, the first actual water meter reading occurred on 12 January 2023, when the tenant had only been living in the property for 22 days. This explains why the invoice is only for $38.83. The second actual water meter reading occurred on 11 March 2023, which is 58 days later. In between these two dates, the tenant only paid $38.83 towards their water consumption pursuant to the invoice dated 20 February 2023, which was an estimate.
The tenant did not submit any evidence such as photographs or videos to support their claim that the toilet was leaking at the beginning of the tenancy. It is reasonably possible that the invoice dated 13 March 2023 is higher than usual because it is based upon the second actual water meter reading taken during this tenancy. The tenant had only paid a small amount towards their water consumption in between 12 January 2023 and 13 March 2023. I find the invoice dated 13 March 2023 most likely reflects the adjustment period that usually occurs in between tenancies as a new tenant establishes their regular water usage.
The tenant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the toilet was leaking around the time of the water rates invoice dated 13 March 2023. The tenant must pay the full amount contained in this invoice. Water rates invoice dated 12 April 2023
The invoice dated 12 April 2023 for $103.60 is an estimated invoice. The estimate would have been based upon the two most recent actual water meter readings for $38.83 on 12 January 2023 and $146.76 on 13 March 2023.
The tenant did not submit any evidence such as photographs or videos to support their claim that the toilet was leaking around 12 April 2023. The landlord strongly denies it was. The invoice is only $3.60 more than what the tenant claims is usual for their family’s consumption of water.
In these circumstances, I am unsure whether the toilet was leaking around the time the water rates invoice dated 12 April 2023 was issued. The tenant has not proven their claim in relation to this invoice and must pay the invoice in full. Water rates invoice dated 18 July 2023
The water rates invoice dated 18 July 2023 is for $103.60 and is based upon an estimated water meter reading. It should have been an actual water meter reading, but for one reason or another, Watercare did not complete an actual water meter reading on this date. This invoice would have been based upon the two most recent actual water meter readings on 12 January 2023 for $38.83 and 13 March 2023 for $146.76.
The tenant did not submit any additional evidence such as photographs or videos to support the claim that the toilet was leaking around 18 July 2023. The landlord denies it was. The invoice is only $3.60 more than what the tenant states is usual for their family’s consumption of water.
In these circumstances, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the toilet was leaking around the time of the water rates invoice dated 18 July 2023. The tenant must pay the full amount contained in this invoice. Water rates invoice dated 15 January 2024
The landlord accepts that they visited the property in late January 2024 after receiving a complaint by the tenant that the toilet was leaking. The landlord gave evidence that they completed a test on the toilet by holding some toilet paper against the back of the toilet bowl. The landlord accepts that the toilet paper became wet, indicating there was a leak. The landlord described this as a “slight” leak.
The period that the water rates invoice dated 15 January 2024 covers is 9 December 2023 – 12 January 2024. This date range is only one month prior to late January 2024 when the landlord says they visited the property and found the toilet to be slightly leaking.
I find it more likely than not that if the toilet was leaking in late January 2024, it was probably leaking between 9 December 2023 and 12 January 2024 as well. This date range is only one month prior. Further, the invoice dated 15 January 2024 is based upon an actual water meter reading. The most recent prior water meter reading was completed on 10 November 2024, which is only two months before. I accept the landlord’s submission that a delay between actual water meter readings can sometimes result in a high water rates invoice however, two months is not particularly long and does not explain the sudden jump to $146.55.
I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that a leak in the toilet contributed to the water rates invoice dated 15 January 2024. The tenant is not liable to pay the full amount contained in this invoice. Water rates invoice dated 12 February 2024
The landlord visited the address in late January 2024 to assess the toilet. The landlord accepts the toilet was leaking and claims that they fixed the leak.
The tenant submitted a video of the toilet taken on 27 February 2024, which shows water running at the back of the toilet at a relatively rapid rate. This video was taken during the period that the landlord accepts there was an issue with a water leak in the main water pipes (12/02/2024 – 12/03/2024).
The tenant’s video has a date stamp of 27 February 2024 and I accept the video was taken on this date.
The video of the toilet taken on 27 February 2024 casts doubt on whether the landlord actually fixed the leaking toilet as they claim they did. Whilst the landlord might be very experienced in building and property maintenance, there is specialist knowledge and expertise that a plumber has that the landlord does not. I consider it reasonably possible that the landlord might not have correctly identified and fixed the problem with the leaking toilet, hence water was still running when it was not being used in the video dated 27 February 2024.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the toilet was leaking around the time that the invoice dated 12 February 2024 was issued. The tenant is not liable to pay the full amount contained in this invoice. Water rates invoices dated 10 April 2024, 13 May 2024 and 12 June 2024
The tenant submitted photographs of the water meter taken on 5 April 2024 when the tenant claims they did not turn the valve at the back of the toilet off. These photographs show an increase in the water consumed between the morning and evening of 5 April 2024, when the tenant and their family were not at home. In comparison, the tenant’s photographs of the water meter taken on 11 April 2024 and 16 April 2024 do not show any water consumption. These photographs were taken when the tenant turned the valve at the back of the toilet off and was absent from the tenancy address for five days.
The tenant also submitted a video of the toilet, which shows a piece of toilet paper pressed against the back of the toilet getting wet when the toilet is not in use. The time stamp for the video is 9 July 2024, which is when the tenant states the video was taken. The landlord denies the video was taken on 9 July 2024 and claims it was taken when the landlord visited the address in January 2024. The tenant submitted a date stamp for the video, which shows 9 July 2024. I find it more likely than not that the video was taken on this date.
The tenant claims that a person called Sayed visited the address on 9 July 2024 and fixed the toilet. The tenant claims Sayed is a plumber, which the landlord strongly denies. Whether or not Sayed is a plumber, it remains the case that since 9 July 2024, the tenant has not received a water rates invoice for more than $100.00.
In all of these circumstances, I find it more likely than not that the toilet was leaking around the time that the invoices dated 10 April 2024, 13 May 2024 and 12 June 2024 were issued.
The invoice dated 13 May 2024 is only for $9.46. This invoice is an outlier, as it was issued after a leak in the main water pipes was discovered and a leak allowance was applied to it. The tenant must pay the full amount contained in this invoice, as it is well below their actual likely water consumption.
In respect of the invoices dated 10 April 2024 and 12 June 2024, the tenant is not liable to pay the full amount contained in these invoices. Water rates invoices dated 15 July 2024 and 9 August 2024
These invoices do not appear unusually high and were issued after the tenant claims the leaking toilet was fixed. The tenant is liable to pay the full amount contained in these two invoices. ESTIMATING TENANT’S WATER USAGE
I have found the tenant has proven on the balance of probabilities that the toilet was leaking during the time the following water rates invoices were issued.
The tenant is not liable to pay the full amount contained in these invoices, only that portion which fairly and most accurately reflects their water usage. To determine this, I have added up all of the invoices that I have found the tenant is liable to pay. These are as follows: 10/02/202312/01/2023 – 10/02/2023$38.83EstimatePaid to Watercare 13/03/2023 10/02/2023 – 11/03/2023$146.76Actual Not paid 12/04/2023 11/03/2023 – 12/04/2023$103.60EstimateNot paid 15/05/2023 12/04/2023 – 12/05/2023$82.04Actual Paid to landlord 12/06/2023 12/05/2023 – 12/06/2023$90.63Estimate Paid to Watercare 18/07/2023 12/06/2023 – 17/07/2023$103.60Estimate Not paid 15/01/2024 09/12/2023 – 12/01/2024$146.55Actual Not paid 12/02/2024 12/01/2024 – 12/02/2024 $113.44Estimate Not paid 10/04/2024 12/03/2024 – 10/04/2024$103.99Estimate Not paid 12/06/2024 11/05/2024 – 12/06/2024 $203.36Estimate Not paid 10/08/2023 17/07/2023 – 10/08/2023$80.34Estimate Paid to Watercare 14/09/2023 10/08/2023 – 13/09/2023 $56.72Actual Paid to Watercare 10/10/2023 13/09/2023 – 10/10/2023$75.63Actual Paid $300.00 to Watercare 13/11/2023 10/10/2023 – 10/11/2023 $80.34Actual Paid to Watercare 11/12/2023 10/11/2023 – 09/12/2023$80.34Estimate Paid to Watercare 15/07/2024 12/06/2024 – 12/07/2024$47.30 Actual Not paid 9/08/2024 13/07/2024 – 09/08/2024 $70.94Estimate Not paid 13/09/2024 09/08/2024 – 12/09/2024$76.02Actual Paid to Watercare 10/10/2024 12/09/2024 – 10/10/2024$65.86Estimate Paid to landlord 12/11/2024 10/10/2024 – 09/11/2024$70.94Actual Paid to landlord 10/12/ 2024 09/11/2024 – 10/12/2024 $70.94Estimate Paid to landlord 14/01/2025 10/12/2024 – 13/01/2025$65.86Actual Paid to landlord
The total amount across all of these invoices is $1,406.69. I have divided this number by the total number of invoices the tenant is liable to pay, which is 18. This produces a monthly average of $78.15. I have applied this figure to the water rates invoices dated: a. 15 January 2024 b. 12 February 2024 c. 10 April 2024 d. 12 June 2024
This produces the following amended table of water rates invoices issued between 10 February 2023 – 14 January 2025: Invoice datePeriod of water consumption the invoice relates to Amount charged to tenant (less fixed fee) Type of reading (estimate or actual) Paid by the tenant or not 10/02/2023 12/01/2023 – 10/02/2023$38.83EstimatePaid to Watercare 13/03/2023 10/02/2023 – 11/03/2023$146.76Actual Not paid 12/04/2023 11/03/2023 – 12/04/2023$103.60EstimateNot paid 15/05/2023 12/04/2023 – 12/05/2023$82.04Actual Paid to landlord 12/06/2023 12/05/2023 – 12/06/2023$90.63Estimate Paid to Watercare 18/07/2023 12/06/2023 – 17/07/2023$103.60Estimate Not paid 10/08/2023 17/07/2023 – 10/08/2023$80.34Estimate Paid to Watercare 14/09/2023 10/08/2023 – 13/09/2023 $56.72Actual Paid to Watercare 10/10/2023 13/09/2023 – 10/10/2023$75.63Actual Paid $300.00 to Watercare 13/11/2023 10/10/2023 – 10/11/2023 $80.34Actual Paid to Watercare 11/12/2023 10/11/2023 – 09/12/2023$80.34Estimate Paid to Watercare 15/01/2024 09/12/2023 – 12/01/2024$78.15Actual Not paid 12/02/2024 12/01/2024 – 12/02/2024 $78.15Estimate Not paid 14/03/2024 12/02/2024 – 12/03/2024$554.09 Actual Not charged to tenant (water leak) 10/04/2024 12/03/2024 – 10/04/2024$78.15Estimate Not paid 13/05/2024 10/04/2024 – 11/05/2024$9.46 Actual Not paid 12/06/2024 11/05/2024 – 12/06/2024 $78.15Estimate Not paid 15/07/2024 12/06/2024 – 12/07/2024$47.30 Actual Not paid 9/08/2024 13/07/2024 – 09/08/2024 $70.94Estimate Not paid 13/09/2024 09/08/2024 – 12/09/2024$76.02Actual Paid to Watercare 10/10/2024 12/09/2024 – 10/10/2024$65.86Estimate Paid to landlord 12/11/2024 10/10/2024 – 09/11/2024$70.94Actual Paid to landlord 10/12/ 2024 09/11/2024 – 10/12/2024 $70.94Estimate Paid to landlord 14/01/2025 10/12/2024 – 13/01/2025$65.86Actual Paid to landlord Total (excluding Total paid by tenant: invoice dated 14/03/2024): $1,728.75$1,158.86
The shortfall between the amount due to be paid by the tenant and the amount actually paid by the tenant is $569.89.
The tenant must pay the landlord $569.89 for outstanding water rates. FILING FEE & SUPPRESSION
The tenant has been substantially successful in their claim. Therefore, I order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee and grant the tenant’s request for name suppression.
The landlord did not request name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5154154 — Tenancy dispute at 14A Shankill Place, East Tamaki, Auckland 2013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5154154 — Tenancy dispute at 14A Shankill Place, East Tamaki, Auckland 2013

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

WATER RATES INVOICES

WAS THERE A LEAKING TOILET?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

WATER RATES INVOICES

WAS THERE A LEAKING TOILET?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions