What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5194192 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 5194192?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Reimburse Chorus Invoice: $398.56 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $35.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5194192?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5194192?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11673730-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5194192 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 5194192?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Reimburse Chorus Invoice: $398.56 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $35.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5194192?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5194192?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11673730-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5194192 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5194192 — net $390.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates – December 2024 to February 2025	$35.48		Water rates – December 2024 to February 2025
Reimburse Chorus invoice		$398.56	Reimburse Chorus invoice
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$35.48	$425.56
Net award		$390.08
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$390.08

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenancy address.
ZT Chen Family Trust immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Quinn and Mr Read attended the hearing as the tenant's representatives. The tenant, VisionWest Community Trust (“VisionWest”), is a social housing provider. VisionWest signs the tenancy agreement with the landlord and then houses its clients who need social housing.
VisionWest’s client occupies the property.
Mr Chen attended the hearing as the trustee of Zt Chen Family Trust. Introduction
This hearing addressed two claims filed by VisionWest against the landlord. a. Fibre ONT Box: Is the landlord responsible for the cost of inspecting and installing a new box that was removed prior to the tenancy? b. Water Invoices: Is VisionWest liable for unpaid water invoices spanning approximately 14 months (from October 2023 to February 2025)?
The landlord, Mr Chen, joined the hearing about 20 minutes late due to traffic delays. Prior to his arrival, preliminary discussions were held regarding the claims Ms Quinn and Mr Read, including reference to relevant case law (Nordon 3202 Limited v Nair [2018] NZDC 17499 and Woollams v Simpson Auckland CIV-2005-004-1583 16 March 2006) on the obligation to provide water invoices in a timely manner.
After Mr Chen’s arrival, key issues below were discussed: a. Whether VisionWest’s client received water invoices sent to the property address. b. The financial circumstances of VisionWest’s client. c. The landlord’s contention that invoices were consistently mailed to the property
I adjourned the hearing briefly to allow Ms Quinn to clarify her client’s awareness of the water invoices. Fibre ONT Box
Mr. Chen acknowledged that VisionWest did not remove the Fibre ONT box, as it was taken out by his contractor before VisionWest took possession of the property.
Mr Chen also accepted that VisionWest is not responsible for the expense of $398.56.
Accordingly, VisionWest’s application for reimbursement of Chorus’ invoice of $398.56 is granted. Unpaid Water invoices Facts
It is not disputed that 14 months of water invoices were unpaid between October 2023 and February 2025. The total unpaid amount is $1,828.17
VisionWest’s client admitted receiving 3–6 paper invoices at the rental address but did not act on them because: a. The invoices were addressed to the landlord’s name (not the tenant or VisionWest). b. VisionWest’s client assumed water billing would be handled via email (like other tenancy matters with VisionWest). c. VisionWest’s client never inquired why water invoices were sent to them. d. VisionWest did not make any inquiries because they received no invoices from the landlord.
Mr. Chen said this was his first rental with a housing provider, so he was unfamiliar with the invoicing expectations.
On 12 February 2025, he received a debt collection notice, which was the first time he became aware that the water invoices were unpaid. The Law
What does “tenant” mean under the RTA? a. Section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) states, “in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement...”.
Section 39(3) of the 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”.
There is no dispute VisionWest’s client was occupying the premises. There is no dispute over the quantum used per the Watercare invoices. Woollams v Simpson
Woollams is a case where the landlord invoiced the tenant for 3 years of water charges after the tenancy ended. The tenant was a solo mother with two children to support and “living from pay day to pay day”.
In Woollams, Judge McElrea held that tenancy agreements include an implied term requiring landlords to provide water invoices quarterly or at least within a reasonable period, such as a few weeks after the invoices are due, to allow tenants to budget. His Honour further held that demanding payment for years of withheld invoices at the end of the tenancy is oppressive.
In Woollams, the tenant was held liable for the most recent quarterly invoice. Nordon 3202 Ltd v Nair
Nordon 3202 Ltd is a case where the landlord invoiced the tenant for 3.5 years of water charges on the last day of the tenancy. In Nordon 3202 Ltd, the tenant had never received any invoices during the tenancy.
Judge A. Sinclair held that the landlord is expected to exercise proper financial management in the context of the commercial arrangement between landlord and tenant and is responsible for the delivery of invoices to the tenant.
In Nordon 3202 Ltd, the tenant was held liable for two most recent invoices. VisionWest’s submissions
Ms Quinn submitted that the landlord failed to provide water invoices for 14 months (Oct 2023–Feb 2025) in a timely manner, breaching the implied term. Ms Quinn relied on Woollams and Nordon 3202 Ltd. (landlords must supply accounts promptly).
Ms Quinn further submitted that her client is a mother of four on a benefit. It would be difficult for her to budget for a lump-sum demand of NZ$1,828.17, causing undue hardship.
Ms Quinn further submitted that Mr Chen was aware that he was responsible for the wastewater fixed fee. Because of this awareness, Mr Chen should have queried if water invoices were paid. Mr Chen’s submissions
Mr. Chen submitted that all Watercare invoices were sent to the property via mail. He did not receive any of the Watercare invoices.
He learned the Watercare invoices were not paid because of a debt collection letter to him. Analysis
The Woollams and Nordon 3202 Ltd involve landlords seeking payment for unpaid water invoices at the end of a tenancy.
In the present case, however, the tenancy was still ongoing at the time of the hearing.
During the hearing, I expressed my preliminary view that VisionWest was liable for the full amount based on the following reasons: a. In Woollams and Nordon 3202 Ltd, the tenancies had already ended when the landlords sought payment. Here, the tenancy is still current. The unpaid Watercare invoices came to light only after Mr. Chen received a debt collection letter. b. In Woollams and Nordon 3202 Ltd, the tenants had not received Watercare invoices during their tenancies. In contrast, VisionWest’s client received 3– 6 Watercare invoices but "assumed", rightly or wrongly, that Watercare invoices had nothing to do with them.
After the hearing concluded, I had time to carefully review Woollams and Nordon 3202 Ltd, relevant sections of the RTA, alongside the facts of this case, I concluded that Mr. Chen is responsible for all Watercare invoices except those for December 2024, January 2025, and February 2025.
My reasoning is as follows: a. I mistakenly focused on the occupier of the premises, who is VisionWest’s client. b. The tenancy agreement is between VisionWest (the tenant) and Mr. Chen (the landlord). VisionWest’s client is not a party to this agreement. Section 2 of the RTA clearly states VisionWest is the tenant, not VisionWest’s client. c. Any related arrangement regarding the tenancy would have been between VisionWest and its client, not Mr. Chen. d. Mr Chen cannot assume that VisionWest’s client occupies the premises and is, therefore, his tenant, since VisionWest’s client, has no contractual obligation to him. In other words, VisionWest’s client is a lawful occupier under a licence from VisionWest. e. Mr Chen's point of contact regarding the tenancy or the property is VisionWest. f. In Woollams and Nordon 3202 Ltd, the involved parties were those to the tenancy agreements; therefore, all contractual and relevant statutory obligations exist between them. g. The principles from Woollams and Nordon 3202 Ltd apply to the present case because Mr. Chen cannot rely on VisionWest’s client’s failure to notify VisionWest as a reason for seeking payment of the unpaid Watercare invoices. This is because Mr. Chen’s tenant is VisionWest under the tenancy agreement. VisionWest’s client is not Mr. Chen’s tenant. h. Mr. Chen is expected to exercise proper financial management in the context of a commercial arrangement with VisionWest and is responsible for promptly delivering invoices to the tenant. Conclusion
Therefore, following Woollams and Nordon 3202 Ltd, Mr Chen failed to provide VisionWest with Watercare invoices promptly.
I find VisionWest is liable for the Watercare invoices from December 2024, January 2025, and February 2025.
Based on my calculations, the amount due for December 2024 is $35.48. No water usage was recorded for January and February 2025.
If there are any errors in my calculations, I encourage the parties to determine the correct total amount among themselves.
If the parties cannot agree on the amount owed for Watercare invoices from December 2024 to February 2025, they may contact me through the Registry for further adjudication. Filing fee
Because Visionwest Community Trust has substantially succeeded with the application, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5194192 — net $390.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates – December 2024 to February 2025	$35.48		Water rates – December 2024 to February 2025
Reimburse Chorus invoice		$398.56	Reimburse Chorus invoice
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$35.48	$425.56
Net award		$390.08
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$390.08

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenancy address.
ZT Chen Family Trust immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Quinn and Mr Read attended the hearing as the tenant's representatives. The tenant, VisionWest Community Trust (“VisionWest”), is a social housing provider. VisionWest signs the tenancy agreement with the landlord and then houses its clients who need social housing.
VisionWest’s client occupies the property.
Mr Chen attended the hearing as the trustee of Zt Chen Family Trust. Introduction
This hearing addressed two claims filed by VisionWest against the landlord. a. Fibre ONT Box: Is the landlord responsible for the cost of inspecting and installing a new box that was removed prior to the tenancy? b. Water Invoices: Is VisionWest liable for unpaid water invoices spanning approximately 14 months (from October 2023 to February 2025)?
The landlord, Mr Chen, joined the hearing about 20 minutes late due to traffic delays. Prior to his arrival, preliminary discussions were held regarding the claims Ms Quinn and Mr Read, including reference to relevant case law (Nordon 3202 Limited v Nair [2018] NZDC 17499 and Woollams v Simpson Auckland CIV-2005-004-1583 16 March 2006) on the obligation to provide water invoices in a timely manner.
After Mr Chen’s arrival, key issues below were discussed: a. Whether VisionWest’s client received water invoices sent to the property address. b. The financial circumstances of VisionWest’s client. c. The landlord’s contention that invoices were consistently mailed to the property
I adjourned the hearing briefly to allow Ms Quinn to clarify her client’s awareness of the water invoices. Fibre ONT Box
Mr. Chen acknowledged that VisionWest did not remove the Fibre ONT box, as it was taken out by his contractor before VisionWest took possession of the property.
Mr Chen also accepted that VisionWest is not responsible for the expense of $398.56.
Accordingly, VisionWest’s application for reimbursement of Chorus’ invoice of $398.56 is granted. Unpaid Water invoices Facts
It is not disputed that 14 months of water invoices were unpaid between October 2023 and February 2025. The total unpaid amount is $1,828.17
VisionWest’s client admitted receiving 3–6 paper invoices at the rental address but did not act on them because: a. The invoices were addressed to the landlord’s name (not the tenant or VisionWest). b. VisionWest’s client assumed water billing would be handled via email (like other tenancy matters with VisionWest). c. VisionWest’s client never inquired why water invoices were sent to them. d. VisionWest did not make any inquiries because they received no invoices from the landlord.
Mr. Chen said this was his first rental with a housing provider, so he was unfamiliar with the invoicing expectations.
On 12 February 2025, he received a debt collection notice, which was the first time he became aware that the water invoices were unpaid. The Law
What does “tenant” mean under the RTA? a. Section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) states, “in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement...”.
Section 39(3) of the 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”.
There is no dispute VisionWest’s client was occupying the premises. There is no dispute over the quantum used per the Watercare invoices. Woollams v Simpson
Woollams is a case where the landlord invoiced the tenant for 3 years of water charges after the tenancy ended. The tenant was a solo mother with two children to support and “living from pay day to pay day”.
In Woollams, Judge McElrea held that tenancy agreements include an implied term requiring landlords to provide water invoices quarterly or at least within a reasonable period, such as a few weeks after the invoices are due, to allow tenants to budget. His Honour further held that demanding payment for years of withheld invoices at the end of the tenancy is oppressive.
In Woollams, the tenant was held liable for the most recent quarterly invoice. Nordon 3202 Ltd v Nair
Nordon 3202 Ltd is a case where the landlord invoiced the tenant for 3.5 years of water charges on the last day of the tenancy. In Nordon 3202 Ltd, the tenant had never received any invoices during the tenancy.
Judge A. Sinclair held that the landlord is expected to exercise proper financial management in the context of the commercial arrangement between landlord and tenant and is responsible for the delivery of invoices to the tenant.
In Nordon 3202 Ltd, the tenant was held liable for two most recent invoices. VisionWest’s submissions
Ms Quinn submitted that the landlord failed to provide water invoices for 14 months (Oct 2023–Feb 2025) in a timely manner, breaching the implied term. Ms Quinn relied on Woollams and Nordon 3202 Ltd. (landlords must supply accounts promptly).
Ms Quinn further submitted that her client is a mother of four on a benefit. It would be difficult for her to budget for a lump-sum demand of NZ$1,828.17, causing undue hardship.
Ms Quinn further submitted that Mr Chen was aware that he was responsible for the wastewater fixed fee. Because of this awareness, Mr Chen should have queried if water invoices were paid. Mr Chen’s submissions
Mr. Chen submitted that all Watercare invoices were sent to the property via mail. He did not receive any of the Watercare invoices.
He learned the Watercare invoices were not paid because of a debt collection letter to him. Analysis
The Woollams and Nordon 3202 Ltd involve landlords seeking payment for unpaid water invoices at the end of a tenancy.
In the present case, however, the tenancy was still ongoing at the time of the hearing.
During the hearing, I expressed my preliminary view that VisionWest was liable for the full amount based on the following reasons: a. In Woollams and Nordon 3202 Ltd, the tenancies had already ended when the landlords sought payment. Here, the tenancy is still current. The unpaid Watercare invoices came to light only after Mr. Chen received a debt collection letter. b. In Woollams and Nordon 3202 Ltd, the tenants had not received Watercare invoices during their tenancies. In contrast, VisionWest’s client received 3– 6 Watercare invoices but "assumed", rightly or wrongly, that Watercare invoices had nothing to do with them.
After the hearing concluded, I had time to carefully review Woollams and Nordon 3202 Ltd, relevant sections of the RTA, alongside the facts of this case, I concluded that Mr. Chen is responsible for all Watercare invoices except those for December 2024, January 2025, and February 2025.
My reasoning is as follows: a. I mistakenly focused on the occupier of the premises, who is VisionWest’s client. b. The tenancy agreement is between VisionWest (the tenant) and Mr. Chen (the landlord). VisionWest’s client is not a party to this agreement. Section 2 of the RTA clearly states VisionWest is the tenant, not VisionWest’s client. c. Any related arrangement regarding the tenancy would have been between VisionWest and its client, not Mr. Chen. d. Mr Chen cannot assume that VisionWest’s client occupies the premises and is, therefore, his tenant, since VisionWest’s client, has no contractual obligation to him. In other words, VisionWest’s client is a lawful occupier under a licence from VisionWest. e. Mr Chen's point of contact regarding the tenancy or the property is VisionWest. f. In Woollams and Nordon 3202 Ltd, the involved parties were those to the tenancy agreements; therefore, all contractual and relevant statutory obligations exist between them. g. The principles from Woollams and Nordon 3202 Ltd apply to the present case because Mr. Chen cannot rely on VisionWest’s client’s failure to notify VisionWest as a reason for seeking payment of the unpaid Watercare invoices. This is because Mr. Chen’s tenant is VisionWest under the tenancy agreement. VisionWest’s client is not Mr. Chen’s tenant. h. Mr. Chen is expected to exercise proper financial management in the context of a commercial arrangement with VisionWest and is responsible for promptly delivering invoices to the tenant. Conclusion
Therefore, following Woollams and Nordon 3202 Ltd, Mr Chen failed to provide VisionWest with Watercare invoices promptly.
I find VisionWest is liable for the Watercare invoices from December 2024, January 2025, and February 2025.
Based on my calculations, the amount due for December 2024 is $35.48. No water usage was recorded for January and February 2025.
If there are any errors in my calculations, I encourage the parties to determine the correct total amount among themselves.
If the parties cannot agree on the amount owed for Watercare invoices from December 2024 to February 2025, they may contact me through the Registry for further adjudication. Filing fee
Because Visionwest Community Trust has substantially succeeded with the application, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5194192 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5194192 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions