What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5156633 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5156633?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5156633?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5156633?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11855389-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5156633 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5156633?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5156633?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5156633?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11855389-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Belgrave Place, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5156633 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote video conference.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 or 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.
The tenancy began on 11 June 2021 and concluded on 12 November 2024.
The tenant claims a full refund of $3161.20 being what she says as the money paid by her towards water usage. She states that she was paying $20.00 per week for water usage and should not have to pay the invoices sent to her by the landlord. The landlord has not filed an application with the Tribunal for payment of these invoices.
The tenancy agreement signed and dated 11 June 2021 recorded the following details: a. Rent per week $210.00 b. 2 weeks rent in advance $420.00 c. Bond amount $840.00 d. Water $30.00
The tenant advises that she was working at the start of the tenancy and was paying her own rent. The tenant further states that she was paying $20.00 per week towards water. She stated during the hearing that on 7 November 2022 she received a letter from Veolia with an overdue account.
The tenant stopped working during COVID and was forced to go on to a Work and Income New Zealand (“WINZ”) benefit. WINZ noticed that she was paying too much rent and gave her a credit which was then applied to her small rent debt with the landlord for the first months’ rent.
The landlord says that on 19 September 2022 the tenant was sent an invoice for $168.53 for water. By that time the tenant had been making her weekly payments of $20.00 and was in credit by $320.00. The credit was applied to the September 2022 account. The next account was February 2023 for $202.27 covering the period July 2022 to August 2022 along with an invoice for $346.75 which covered the period September 2022 to December 2022.
The landlord stated during the hearing that the tenant has paid a total of $1600.00 in the form of her weekly payments, although based on the payment schedule provided with the application the total appears to be $1760.00.
The landlord also confirmed during the hearing that water invoices for the period of the tenancy total $3161.20. The total of the invoices based on the schedule is $2992.67.
The bond of $516.00 was refunded on 29 January 2025 and $467.00 of this money was applied to outstanding water charges. The tenant initially disputed granting authority for the bond to be released. The landlord provided a bond refund form to the Tribunal during the hearing clearly showing the tenant’s signature on the refund form. The tenant also accepted during the hearing that it was her signature on the form.
The tenant provided evidence in the form of several emails from the landlord. One of these emails dated 27 May 2024 from Starlet Aholelei noted that “if you were not on a payment plan for water, you would pay this bill in full. However, because you are contributing to your water every week, you do not have to worry about this water bill.”
A further email from the landlord dated 4 April 2024 noted that, “I believe on your tenancy agreement as discussed with Betsy, water is $30.00 a week, this is to cover your consumption.” The law
Is the tenant entitled to a full refund of the water paid from 11 June 2021 to 12 November 2024, when the rent was recorded as $210.00 per week plus water?
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).
A tenant’s responsibility to pay water usage charges depends on the terms outlined in the Tenancy Agreement. If the premises have a separate water meter, the tenant should be directly invoiced for their actual water consumption. They are not liable for the payment of any fixed charges. While the tenant is responsible for the timely payment of water charges there is also an expectation that landlords will issue invoices for payment with out delay. Analysis
It is clear from todays’ video hearing that this has been an immensely frustrating exercise for the tenant. Instead of having a simplified approach where water invoices are sent each month, we have a situation where the owner of the property sent invoices spasmodically. On one occasion a water invoice of more than $800.00 was emailed to the tenant. This no doubt would have caused the tenant significant stress and anxiety.
That being said, the tenant has paid between $1600.00 and $1760.00 for water from 24 February 2022 to 31 October 2024. There was also an additional amount of $467.00 paid from the bond towards water. The tenant has not provided evidence that she has paid more than this.
The landlord’s payment schedule confirms total water invoices of $2992.67. The landlord also provided copies of all water invoices to the Tribunal after the hearing as requested.
Based on the evidence provided I am satisfied that the weekly payments made by the tenant have not exceeded the invoiced amounts as provided by the landlord. In fact, it would appear that overall, the tenant has had the benefit of paying less than the total amount of all invoices. This is confirmed by the payment schedule which appears to show an amount outstanding to the landlord as at 29 January 2025.
The landlord has not filed an application with the Tribunal for any outstanding charges. The landlord also confirmed during the hearing that they are not pursuing any further outstanding charges against the tenant.
While I sympathise with the tenant’s position the reality is that if I were to allow her application and order payment of the amount sought this would effectively mean that she would have had free water usage for the duration of the tenancy. It is just unfortunate that the landlord was somewhat remiss in their communications regarding the water charges.
The tenant’s application must therefore be dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote video conference.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 or 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.

The tenancy began on 11 June 2021 and concluded on 12 November 2024.

The tenant claims a full refund of $3161.20 being what she says as the money paid by her towards water usage. She states that she was paying $20.00 per week for water usage and should not have to pay the invoices sent to her by the landlord. The landlord has not filed an application with the Tribunal for payment of these invoices.

The tenancy agreement signed and dated 11 June 2021 recorded the following details: a. Rent per week $210.00 b. 2 weeks rent in advance $420.00 c. Bond amount $840.00 d. Water $30.00

The tenant advises that she was working at the start of the tenancy and was paying her own rent. The tenant further states that she was paying $20.00 per week towards water. She stated during the hearing that on 7 November 2022 she received a letter from Veolia with an overdue account.

The tenant stopped working during COVID and was forced to go on to a Work and Income New Zealand (“WINZ”) benefit. WINZ noticed that she was paying too much rent and gave her a credit which was then applied to her small rent debt with the landlord for the first months’ rent.

The landlord says that on 19 September 2022 the tenant was sent an invoice for $168.53 for water. By that time the tenant had been making her weekly payments of $20.00 and was in credit by $320.00. The credit was applied to the September 2022 account. The next account was February 2023 for $202.27 covering the period July 2022 to August 2022 along with an invoice for $346.75 which covered the period September 2022 to December 2022.

The landlord stated during the hearing that the tenant has paid a total of $1600.00 in the form of her weekly payments, although based on the payment schedule provided with the application the total appears to be $1760.00.

The landlord also confirmed during the hearing that water invoices for the period of the tenancy total $3161.20. The total of the invoices based on the schedule is $2992.67.

The bond of $516.00 was refunded on 29 January 2025 and $467.00 of this money was applied to outstanding water charges. The tenant initially disputed granting authority for the bond to be released. The landlord provided a bond refund form to the Tribunal during the hearing clearly showing the tenant’s signature on the refund form. The tenant also accepted during the hearing that it was her signature on the form.

The tenant provided evidence in the form of several emails from the landlord. One of these emails dated 27 May 2024 from Starlet Aholelei noted that “if you were not on a payment plan for water, you would pay this bill in full. However, because you are contributing to your water every week, you do not have to worry about this water bill.”

A further email from the landlord dated 4 April 2024 noted that, “I believe on your tenancy agreement as discussed with Betsy, water is $30.00 a week, this is to cover your consumption.” The law

Is the tenant entitled to a full refund of the water paid from 11 June 2021 to 12 November 2024, when the rent was recorded as $210.00 per week plus water?

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).

A tenant’s responsibility to pay water usage charges depends on the terms outlined in the Tenancy Agreement. If the premises have a separate water meter, the tenant should be directly invoiced for their actual water consumption. They are not liable for the payment of any fixed charges. While the tenant is responsible for the timely payment of water charges there is also an expectation that landlords will issue invoices for payment with out delay. Analysis

It is clear from todays’ video hearing that this has been an immensely frustrating exercise for the tenant. Instead of having a simplified approach where water invoices are sent each month, we have a situation where the owner of the property sent invoices spasmodically. On one occasion a water invoice of more than $800.00 was emailed to the tenant. This no doubt would have caused the tenant significant stress and anxiety.

That being said, the tenant has paid between $1600.00 and $1760.00 for water from 24 February 2022 to 31 October 2024. There was also an additional amount of $467.00 paid from the bond towards water. The tenant has not provided evidence that she has paid more than this.

The landlord’s payment schedule confirms total water invoices of $2992.67. The landlord also provided copies of all water invoices to the Tribunal after the hearing as requested.

Based on the evidence provided I am satisfied that the weekly payments made by the tenant have not exceeded the invoiced amounts as provided by the landlord. In fact, it would appear that overall, the tenant has had the benefit of paying less than the total amount of all invoices. This is confirmed by the payment schedule which appears to show an amount outstanding to the landlord as at 29 January 2025.

The landlord has not filed an application with the Tribunal for any outstanding charges. The landlord also confirmed during the hearing that they are not pursuing any further outstanding charges against the tenant.

While I sympathise with the tenant’s position the reality is that if I were to allow her application and order payment of the amount sought this would effectively mean that she would have had free water usage for the duration of the tenancy. It is just unfortunate that the landlord was somewhat remiss in their communications regarding the water charges.

The tenant’s application must therefore be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5156633 — Tenancy dispute at 4 Belgrave Place, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5156633 — Tenancy dispute at 4 Belgrave Place, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions