What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301959 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 5301959?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301959?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12455923-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301959 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 5301959?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301959?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12455923-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5301959 — Unit Titles

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video-conference.
The applicant sought an order for vacated water rates. The amount at application was $825.15 but this was reduced by the landlord to $646.36 at the hearing.
This tenancy was from 22 April 2022 to 17 January 2024. This application was submitted some 18 months (8 July 2025) after the tenancy ended.
No water invoices were submitted to the tenant during the tenancy.
The water invoices as submitted by the landlord as part of this application were the first the tenant had seen. Of note, the invoices are addressed to the owner (at the premises address). For clarity, this is an apartment within a body corporate. The owner lives overseas.
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. 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.”
The landlord’s stance is that it was an obligation of the tenant to advise the body corporate and/or Tenco, the billing agent of his name and contact details. This was claimed as stated as a requirement but if so, the relevant term in any contract or agreement was not provided.
The tenant believes he should not be held accountable after the earlier failure to provide invoices during the tenancy, nor so long after the tenancy has ended.

Is the tenant liable for the water invoices?

Section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) is the relevant section with respect to outgoings: (1)The landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that— (a) are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied; and are incurred for common facilities.... (3)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. (4)Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), the tenant is responsible for the following charges, incurred during the tenancy, in respect of the premises:... (c) supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.
Therefore, tenants have the obligation to pay for their water usage. However, there is a corresponding implied obligation on a landlord to advise the tenant of the costs clearly and within a reasonable time frame. A tenant must be provided with the actual provider invoices and be able to clearly identify what is their usage. This has been detailed in precedent by the District Court which the Tenancy Tribunal is bound to follow, as discussed below.
Firstly, the case of Braganza v Saia (DC) CIV-2010-004-2024. In respect to the issue of a landlord's obligation to render water accounts promptly, the Judge held: "It is plainly incumbent on a landlord to set out with clarity what it is that he claims is due, as and when it falls due, and, when it comes to water, to provide the bills to the tenant as they fall due, so that the tenant may make any challenge to the supplier that he thinks is appropriate and make arrangements for payment in a timely fashion". [Paragraph 15].
Further, the Judge noted that: "If the tenant is to be asked to pay after the event with no opportunity to check the calculation, or to make provision for payment at the time, he is at a manifest disadvantage. It is down to the landlord to provide the detail as it falls due". [Paragraph 16].
The earlier case of Judge McElrea in Woollams v Simpson, CIV-2005-004- 1583, DC Auckland, 16 March 2006, is also relevant. In this case, the tenant had been presented at the end of her tenancy, with a claim for water rates for the three years of her tenancy. Judge McElrea stated: [11] In my view, there is an implied term in this tenancy agreement that the landlord would provide accounts to the tenant at regular intervals so as to enable repayment to be made. I imply such a term because it seems to me to be a necessary term to make commercial sense of the agreement. How can a tenant be expected to pay for a regular charge such as a quarterly charge unless it is told the amount of the charge from time to time? That makes nonsense of any attempt to budget, which presumably most tenants have to do, whether they be commercial or residential tenants. It makes nonsense of any proper concept of financial management as between parties to a commercial arrangement. ... [13] As a result, in my view, there is a requirement on the landlord seeking to rely on any such arrangement in the lease, that accounts be supplied quarterly or at least within a reasonable period such as within a few weeks after the account is due, unless some other arrangement is agreed between the parties. Failure to do that has predictable consequences for any tenant and apparently did have for this tenant. In my view, the implied term which I read into the Act and into this agreement is necessary in order to make the clause a workable one from a commercial point of view, and in order to decide this matter according to the substantial merits and justice of the case.
In the more recent case of Nordon 3202 Ltd v Shailaja Nair [2018] NZDC 17499, the facts are similar as the landlord failed to charge water rates during the term of the tenancy but presented the tenant with an account at the end. At paragraph 19 Judge Sinclair says: “It is the obligation of the landlord to supply the water rates accounts to the tenant. Furthermore, this obligation cannot be deflected by saying that the tenant was aware of their responsibility to pay such outgoings and/or did not raise the issue.”
The failure to provide the water invoices in a timely manner is a challenge for the landlord here. I also have concerns regarding the quantum as the total sought includes fixed-charges as well as consumption costs. Fixed-charges such as these are costs on the owner, regardless of occupancy, and remain with them.
There is a second issue. The lapsed time since the tenancy ended and the application.
The Tribunal may make any orders that the High Court or District Court may make under any enactment or rule of law relating to contracts (see section 78(1)(h) RTA). This includes equitable remedies such as estoppel.
A party claiming an equitable estoppel must establish that: a. A belief or expectation has been created or encouraged through some action, representation, or omission to act by the other party; b. The belief or expectation has been reasonably relied on to their detriment; and c. It would be unconscionable for the party against whom the estoppel is alleged to depart from the belief or expectation.
The underlying principle of equitable estoppel is to prevent the exercise of strict legal rights in circumstances where the exercise of them would be unconscionable. This principle is entirely consistent with the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal (Stella & Carey v Bay of Islands Realty Limited & Kirkman [2016] NZTT Kaikohe 4051975 & 4053657), in particular s 85(2) RTA, provides that the Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Consideration
Costs have been incurred. At this time, those costs sit with the owner.
The tenant is entitled to timely notice of invoiced costs such as water. That did not occur here and I do not consider that has been proven as due to any tenant failure. The invoices clearly record over time an increasing amount of water costs due to unpaid bills. It was open to the landlords to respond to this.
Clearly some water consumption, with an associated cost, will have occurred during this tenancy. However, I have also considered possible equitable estoppel. For this demand for payment to be awarded some 1.5 years after the tenancy is, in my view, an inequitable situation. This was by all other accounts a good tenancy. It ended, the tenant received his bond and everyone had moved on.
Due to the landlord delays in both the timely presentment of the water invoices during the tenancy, and the significantly delayed lodging of this application, I must dismiss the landlord application. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant requested suppression. As the landlord application is dismissed, I consider the tenant request is appropriate and justified. There is little if any public interest in the name being published. Apart from this belated issue, the tenancy operated and ended well.
Tenant name and address suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301959 — Unit Titles

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301959 — Unit Titles

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the water invoices?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the water invoices?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions