What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5197731 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5197731?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $385.12 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5197731?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5197731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11912219-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5197731 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5197731?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $385.12 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5197731?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5197731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11912219-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5197731 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5197731 — net $412.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to 13 May 2025	$385.12	Water rates to 13 May 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$412.12
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$412.12

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Shelter Realty Limited - As Agent For Dalriada Ventures Ltd - Grant Middleton & Lorna Brown $412.12 immediately, as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Water rates to 13 May 2025$385.12 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$412.12 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$412.12
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. In particular, the landlord says that the tenant has failed and refused to pay Water Rates.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” (emphasis added) Grounds for Termination
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord says that the tenant has breached their obligations by failing or refusing to pay water rates as they fall due for payment.
The landlord says that it served a 14-day notice on the tenant on, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. The landlord sent a 14-day notice to the tenant dated 17 February 2025, claiming that water rates of $1,831.07 are owed at that date. The tenant did not pay the amount claimed.

Has the Landlord Proved the Claim for Water Rates?

Before I can consider the application for termination, I must determine whether the landlord has proved that the tenant breached its obligations. Put another way, has the landlord proved its claim for water rates?
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.
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.
The landlord claims that the tenant owes $2,204.30 for water rates to the latest account, dated 13 May 2025. The landlord provided a copy of an internal transaction statement recording invoices, it says, were sent to the tenant. The landlord also provided copies of Water Care invoices dated 5 February 2025, 6 March 2025 and 13 May 2025 (with the cover invoices sent to the tenant seeking reimbursement of those invoices).
The landlord did not provide copies of any other Water Care invoices or copies of the invoices sent to the tenant for water.
The issue seems to have arisen when the landlord claimed a very large water charge in or around August 2024. The landlord says that all bills up to that date had been estimated because of difficulties with the tenant providing access. He said that there was a very large catch-up bill when an actual reading was taken.
The tenant says that the hot water cylinder was leaking in and around June and July 2024 and took some time to fix. She says that there was other leaking in or around December 2024 and January 2025, which also took time to repair. The landlord disputes that and says all repairs were attended to promptly.
The landlord did not provide a copy of the August 2024 invoice with its application. It did not provide copies of any invoices for water charges incurred before 5 February 2025. For that reason, the claim for water rates of $2,204.30 is dismissed. It is incumbent on the landlord to provide the evidence which supports its claim. It is standard practice for a landlord to provide copies of the water rates invoices that it is seeking to recover. Without those invoices, the landlord has not established that it is more likely than not that the tenant owes the amount claimed.
I have awarded the amount of water consumption charges from the three invoices that were provided to the Tribunal. Those amounts have been proved. All other claims for water rates are dismissed.

Should the Tenancy Be Terminated?

As noted above, the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The 14-day notice issued by the landlord claimed water rates of $1,831.07, but the landlord has not established that that was the amount owed. The landlord has not established that a proper 14-day notice was served.
The landlord has established a claim for water rates of $385.12. A breach at that level is not of such nature and extent to justify termination of the tenancy.
The application for termination is dismissed. Hearing Procedure
During the hearing the landlord’s representative, Mr Banerjee, suggested that he was not being given a fair opportunity to speak. It is important to address his concerns.
At the start of the hearing, the Tribunal outlined the requirements for termination under s56 – as outlined in paragraphs 5, 6 and 18 above. Mr Banerjee was then given the opportunity to present his claims. He raised issues which were not relevant to the current application and the Tribunal asked him to address issues in this application only being termination and water rates. He set out the amount claimed, the background to the dispute and referred to emails from the tenant.
While the tenant was responding to the application, Mr Banerjee interrupted her. I reminded the parties of the difficulty for the Tribunal in hearing either party if there are interruptions.
When the tenant had finished responding to the claims, I gave Mr Banerjee his right of reply. I outlined that the reply is limited to direct responses to what the tenant had said, it was not an opportunity to re-present the landlords claim and it is not an opportunity to raise fresh matters. This is standard procedure.
I stopped Mr Banerjee during his reply because it was, primarily, a re-statement of the evidence and submissions he had already given. He suggested that that was not fair and that he should be given a full opportunity to address the Tribunal. I did not accept Mr Banerjee’s submission but provided him with complete latitude to say what he wished to, which he did.
Ultimately, the argument about the possible cause of any increased water rates was not relevant to my determination because the landlord has failed to provide the invoices which it relies on in any event.
As the tenant was substantially successful, I have suppressed her name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5197731 — net $412.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to 13 May 2025	$385.12	Water rates to 13 May 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$412.12
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$412.12

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Shelter Realty Limited - As Agent For Dalriada Ventures Ltd - Grant Middleton & Lorna Brown $412.12 immediately, as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Water rates to 13 May 2025$385.12 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$412.12 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$412.12
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. In particular, the landlord says that the tenant has failed and refused to pay Water Rates.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” (emphasis added) Grounds for Termination
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord says that the tenant has breached their obligations by failing or refusing to pay water rates as they fall due for payment.
The landlord says that it served a 14-day notice on the tenant on, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. The landlord sent a 14-day notice to the tenant dated 17 February 2025, claiming that water rates of $1,831.07 are owed at that date. The tenant did not pay the amount claimed.

Has the Landlord Proved the Claim for Water Rates?

Before I can consider the application for termination, I must determine whether the landlord has proved that the tenant breached its obligations. Put another way, has the landlord proved its claim for water rates?
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.
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.
The landlord claims that the tenant owes $2,204.30 for water rates to the latest account, dated 13 May 2025. The landlord provided a copy of an internal transaction statement recording invoices, it says, were sent to the tenant. The landlord also provided copies of Water Care invoices dated 5 February 2025, 6 March 2025 and 13 May 2025 (with the cover invoices sent to the tenant seeking reimbursement of those invoices).
The landlord did not provide copies of any other Water Care invoices or copies of the invoices sent to the tenant for water.
The issue seems to have arisen when the landlord claimed a very large water charge in or around August 2024. The landlord says that all bills up to that date had been estimated because of difficulties with the tenant providing access. He said that there was a very large catch-up bill when an actual reading was taken.
The tenant says that the hot water cylinder was leaking in and around June and July 2024 and took some time to fix. She says that there was other leaking in or around December 2024 and January 2025, which also took time to repair. The landlord disputes that and says all repairs were attended to promptly.
The landlord did not provide a copy of the August 2024 invoice with its application. It did not provide copies of any invoices for water charges incurred before 5 February 2025. For that reason, the claim for water rates of $2,204.30 is dismissed. It is incumbent on the landlord to provide the evidence which supports its claim. It is standard practice for a landlord to provide copies of the water rates invoices that it is seeking to recover. Without those invoices, the landlord has not established that it is more likely than not that the tenant owes the amount claimed.
I have awarded the amount of water consumption charges from the three invoices that were provided to the Tribunal. Those amounts have been proved. All other claims for water rates are dismissed.

Should the Tenancy Be Terminated?

As noted above, the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The 14-day notice issued by the landlord claimed water rates of $1,831.07, but the landlord has not established that that was the amount owed. The landlord has not established that a proper 14-day notice was served.
The landlord has established a claim for water rates of $385.12. A breach at that level is not of such nature and extent to justify termination of the tenancy.
The application for termination is dismissed. Hearing Procedure
During the hearing the landlord’s representative, Mr Banerjee, suggested that he was not being given a fair opportunity to speak. It is important to address his concerns.
At the start of the hearing, the Tribunal outlined the requirements for termination under s56 – as outlined in paragraphs 5, 6 and 18 above. Mr Banerjee was then given the opportunity to present his claims. He raised issues which were not relevant to the current application and the Tribunal asked him to address issues in this application only being termination and water rates. He set out the amount claimed, the background to the dispute and referred to emails from the tenant.
While the tenant was responding to the application, Mr Banerjee interrupted her. I reminded the parties of the difficulty for the Tribunal in hearing either party if there are interruptions.
When the tenant had finished responding to the claims, I gave Mr Banerjee his right of reply. I outlined that the reply is limited to direct responses to what the tenant had said, it was not an opportunity to re-present the landlords claim and it is not an opportunity to raise fresh matters. This is standard procedure.
I stopped Mr Banerjee during his reply because it was, primarily, a re-statement of the evidence and submissions he had already given. He suggested that that was not fair and that he should be given a full opportunity to address the Tribunal. I did not accept Mr Banerjee’s submission but provided him with complete latitude to say what he wished to, which he did.
Ultimately, the argument about the possible cause of any increased water rates was not relevant to my determination because the landlord has failed to provide the invoices which it relies on in any event.
As the tenant was substantially successful, I have suppressed her name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5197731 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5197731 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the Landlord Proved the Claim for Water Rates?

Should the Tenancy Be Terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the Landlord Proved the Claim for Water Rates?

Should the Tenancy Be Terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions