How much money was awarded in case 5275879?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Unblock Sink: $204.13 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $459.83 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5275879?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5275879?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12244013-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5275879?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Unblock Sink: $204.13 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $459.83 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5275879?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5275879?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12244013-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5275879 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5275879 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal Orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5275879 — net $690.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$459.83	Water rates
Unblock sink	$204.13	Unblock sink
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$690.96
Bond	$971.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$690.96

The Tribunal Orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $690.96 from the remaining bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $971.93 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $690.96 [The tenant/s]: $280.97

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. [The tenant] was represented by her husband.

The landlord has applied for reimbursement of water rates charges, a plumber’s call out, refund of the remaining bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

After the tenancy ended on 1 February 2025, the parties agreed that the undisputed part of the bond should be refunded to the tenant. That has happened.

The tenant agrees to compensate the landlord for the cost of a plumber’s call out to unblock the sink.

What the parties haven’t been able to agree about, is whether the tenant should be responsible for additional water rates.

How much is owed for water rates?

There was a problem with the water meter at the premises. It was obscured and couldn’t be read accurately. Because of that, there were a series of Watercare invoices sent based on estimated usage.

When the meter was replaced with an electronic meter in June 2024, a reading was done which resulted in a large “catch up” bill of around $450.00, four times the amount of the previous highest charge. Understandably the tenant questioned that invoice.

Having challenged Watercare about it, the landlord was told that the reason for that very large invoice was not because of a leak or other cause unrelated to the tenant’s water usage, but reflected the series of low previous invoices based on estimated consumption.

That is supported by an e-mail from Watercare Services saying, “...I can confirm the average usage as follows: Old meter ID:A1694188 October 2023 to June 2024 average usage ws 24kL a month New meter ID:ED2337115B July 2024 to January 2025 average usage is 25kL a month.”

As the tenant points out however, Watercare issued an invoice showing an actual reading on 7 April 2024 of 8632kL. It was followed by an estimated reading on 3 May 2024 and then, when the meter was replaced in June, by an actual reading on 11June 2025 of 8739, accompanied by an invoice for $449.05 for consumption of 95kL.

Using that quantity of water between the two actual readings in April and June, is entirely inconsistent with the tenant’s pattern of consumption before or since.

Possible explanations are: a. a leak; b. unique and extreme water usage during that period; c. the April reading being incorrectly recorded as actual rather than estimated; d. the April reading being incorrect; e. the June reading being incorrect.

The evidence from Watercare does not enable me to make a finding about the probable explanation, though neither party thinks a. or b. is likely.

The landlord has had to pay the whole of the Watercare consumption charges.

The tenant is responsible for, “.....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.” Including, “.....supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.” (s.39 RTA)

Given the uncertainties identified, I do not find it proved that the whole of the June Watercare invoice is attributable to the tenant’s water consumption.

The parties agree that instead, the tenant should reimburse the landlord for water charges based on usage for that invoice period of 30kL, the monthly average.

The total outstanding is adjusted accordingly.

Because [The applicant/s] has succeeded with claims I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5275879 — net $690.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$459.83	Water rates
Unblock sink	$204.13	Unblock sink
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$690.96
Bond	$971.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$690.96

Order

The Tribunal Orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $690.96 from the remaining bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $971.93 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $690.96 [The tenant/s]: $280.97

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. [The tenant] was represented by her husband.
The landlord has applied for reimbursement of water rates charges, a plumber’s call out, refund of the remaining bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
After the tenancy ended on 1 February 2025, the parties agreed that the undisputed part of the bond should be refunded to the tenant. That has happened.
The tenant agrees to compensate the landlord for the cost of a plumber’s call out to unblock the sink.
What the parties haven’t been able to agree about, is whether the tenant should be responsible for additional water rates.

How much is owed for water rates?

There was a problem with the water meter at the premises. It was obscured and couldn’t be read accurately. Because of that, there were a series of Watercare invoices sent based on estimated usage.
When the meter was replaced with an electronic meter in June 2024, a reading was done which resulted in a large “catch up” bill of around $450.00, four times the amount of the previous highest charge. Understandably the tenant questioned that invoice.
Having challenged Watercare about it, the landlord was told that the reason for that very large invoice was not because of a leak or other cause unrelated to the tenant’s water usage, but reflected the series of low previous invoices based on estimated consumption.
That is supported by an e-mail from Watercare Services saying, “...I can confirm the average usage as follows: Old meter ID:A1694188 October 2023 to June 2024 average usage ws 24kL a month New meter ID:ED2337115B July 2024 to January 2025 average usage is 25kL a month.”
As the tenant points out however, Watercare issued an invoice showing an actual reading on 7 April 2024 of 8632kL. It was followed by an estimated reading on 3 May 2024 and then, when the meter was replaced in June, by an actual reading on 11June 2025 of 8739, accompanied by an invoice for $449.05 for consumption of 95kL.
Using that quantity of water between the two actual readings in April and June, is entirely inconsistent with the tenant’s pattern of consumption before or since.
Possible explanations are: a. a leak; b. unique and extreme water usage during that period; c. the April reading being incorrectly recorded as actual rather than estimated; d. the April reading being incorrect; e. the June reading being incorrect.
The evidence from Watercare does not enable me to make a finding about the probable explanation, though neither party thinks a. or b. is likely.
The landlord has had to pay the whole of the Watercare consumption charges.
The tenant is responsible for, “.....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.” Including, “.....supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.” (s.39 RTA)
Given the uncertainties identified, I do not find it proved that the whole of the June Watercare invoice is attributable to the tenant’s water consumption.
The parties agree that instead, the tenant should reimburse the landlord for water charges based on usage for that invoice period of 30kL, the monthly average.
The total outstanding is adjusted accordingly.
Because [The applicant/s] has succeeded with claims I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5275879 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5275879 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions