What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315895 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 5315895?

Water Rates: $182.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315895?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315895?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12783391-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315895 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 5315895?

Water Rates: $182.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315895?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315895?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12783391-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5315895 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315895 — net $182.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$182.41	Water rates
Net award	$182.41
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$182.41

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $182.41 immediately, as shown in the table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by teleconference.
This tenancy began on 23 February 2025 and was for a fixed term, ending on 23 May 2025. The bond has been returned to the tenant.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation for a plumber’s invoice for unblocking a drain ($1,038.02), an invoice from Chorus for repairing damage to telecommunications equipment ($318.72), and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord claims $182.41 for water charges, comprising water and wastewater consumption, as shown in the Watercare invoice. The tenant states she understood, at the end of the tenancy, there would be $100.00 for water, and her bond was returned. She says she did not receive any final water invoice. However, the landlord’s oral evidence is that this was emailed to her, and the invoice is based on an actual reading.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act (the RTA) a tenant is responsible for all outgoings for the premises exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises, including electricity, gas, telephone and internet. 1 A tenant is also liable for water charges where a water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption. 2 However, a tenant is not liable to pay fixed water charges as they are payable regardless of the tenant’s occupation.
In this case, the water charges sought by the landlord cover the period of the tenancy. It is based on an actual reading, and does not include any fixed charges. Accordingly, the tenant will be liable for this cost, which is awarded above. Drain unblocking
The landlord seeks compensation for a plumber’s invoice for unblocking a drain. The amount sought is $1,038.02. The landlord also seeks compensation for the owner’s time to attend to this issue, and the loss of rent due to the delay in the new tenants being able to move in.
The landlord’s evidence includes an email from the plumber which explains that the drainage blockage was due to a t-shirt being flushed down a toilet. The tenant denies responsibility. She gave evidence that only she and her daughter, who is not yet one year old, reside at the premises, and it was highly unlikely that her daughter could be responsible. She questions how a T-shirt could be flushed down a toilet. She suggested it was possible that squatters or unknown individuals may have entered the property without her knowledge, and caused the blockage. She has previously reported this to the landlord. 1 Section 39(4)(a) and (b) 2 Section 39(4)(c)
Ordinarily, where it is shown that a drain blockage is caused by items being put into the toilet, such repair costs during a tenancy will be the responsibility of a tenant. However, in this case, the plumber’s invoice shows the blockage was investigated and cleared on 1 July 2025. This was well after the tenancy had ended. Another tenancy started on 5 June 2025. So, while it may be an issue caused by a tenant or someone else at the premises with the tenant’s permission, it is unclear whether this tenant is responsible for the blockage, since other tenants had moved into the premises.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
Consequently, I decline to award the landlord additional compensation for the time to attend to this issue and the loss of rent. Chorus invoice: General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord seeks compensation for tenant damage. To be successful, a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) of the RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, the landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered. The landlord’s claim for compensation for tenant damage
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to telecommunications equipment and relies on the Chorus invoice in the amount of $318.72, and a report and email from Chorus as evidence of the likely cause. According to the landlord’s evidence, the optical network terminal (ONT) was missing, and the pigtail fibre cable was damaged. This was discovered when the next tenancy began on 5 June 2025. The e-mail from the owner to the property manager indicates the owner believes that, as the items were fixed equipment, they could not have been removed or damaged by accident, and must have been either intentionally or carelessly damaged.
While acknowledging the reasons, I find the landlord has not been able to establish, with sufficient evidence, that this damage likely occurred during this tenancy. The Network Damage Report completed by Chorus states that the ONT was removed, and the fibre cable was damaged during “renovations and cleaning.” It is unlikely that the tenant was undertaking any renovation work. In terms of whether the damage occurred during cleaning, the tenant’s evidence is that everything was working fine when she was at the property. Furthermore, the e-mail from the cost recovery specialist at Chorus states: Our records indicate a working connection at the property until the last week of May 2025, so the damage occurred between 24/05 and 9/06.”
In this case the tenancy ended on 23 May 2025. Therefore, it seems likely the damage occurred after the tenancy had ended. Tenants are only liable for damage that occurs during the tenancy.
The landlord accepts that no exit inspection report was completed on the last day of the tenancy or in the days immediately following. The damage is not evident from the inspection report that was provided at the hearing, which was completed on 3 June 2025. This report is noted to be a move in inspection report, presumably completed before the new tenants moved in, on 5 June 2025. The photograph of the damage, provided by Chorus, is dated 9 June 2025 and was taken over two weeks after the tenancy had ended.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression, and each has had some success. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315895 — net $182.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$182.41	Water rates
Net award	$182.41
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$182.41

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $182.41 immediately, as shown in the table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by teleconference.
This tenancy began on 23 February 2025 and was for a fixed term, ending on 23 May 2025. The bond has been returned to the tenant.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation for a plumber’s invoice for unblocking a drain ($1,038.02), an invoice from Chorus for repairing damage to telecommunications equipment ($318.72), and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord claims $182.41 for water charges, comprising water and wastewater consumption, as shown in the Watercare invoice. The tenant states she understood, at the end of the tenancy, there would be $100.00 for water, and her bond was returned. She says she did not receive any final water invoice. However, the landlord’s oral evidence is that this was emailed to her, and the invoice is based on an actual reading.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act (the RTA) a tenant is responsible for all outgoings for the premises exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises, including electricity, gas, telephone and internet. 1 A tenant is also liable for water charges where a water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption. 2 However, a tenant is not liable to pay fixed water charges as they are payable regardless of the tenant’s occupation.
In this case, the water charges sought by the landlord cover the period of the tenancy. It is based on an actual reading, and does not include any fixed charges. Accordingly, the tenant will be liable for this cost, which is awarded above. Drain unblocking
The landlord seeks compensation for a plumber’s invoice for unblocking a drain. The amount sought is $1,038.02. The landlord also seeks compensation for the owner’s time to attend to this issue, and the loss of rent due to the delay in the new tenants being able to move in.
The landlord’s evidence includes an email from the plumber which explains that the drainage blockage was due to a t-shirt being flushed down a toilet. The tenant denies responsibility. She gave evidence that only she and her daughter, who is not yet one year old, reside at the premises, and it was highly unlikely that her daughter could be responsible. She questions how a T-shirt could be flushed down a toilet. She suggested it was possible that squatters or unknown individuals may have entered the property without her knowledge, and caused the blockage. She has previously reported this to the landlord. 1 Section 39(4)(a) and (b) 2 Section 39(4)(c)
Ordinarily, where it is shown that a drain blockage is caused by items being put into the toilet, such repair costs during a tenancy will be the responsibility of a tenant. However, in this case, the plumber’s invoice shows the blockage was investigated and cleared on 1 July 2025. This was well after the tenancy had ended. Another tenancy started on 5 June 2025. So, while it may be an issue caused by a tenant or someone else at the premises with the tenant’s permission, it is unclear whether this tenant is responsible for the blockage, since other tenants had moved into the premises.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
Consequently, I decline to award the landlord additional compensation for the time to attend to this issue and the loss of rent. Chorus invoice: General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord seeks compensation for tenant damage. To be successful, a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) of the RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, the landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered. The landlord’s claim for compensation for tenant damage
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to telecommunications equipment and relies on the Chorus invoice in the amount of $318.72, and a report and email from Chorus as evidence of the likely cause. According to the landlord’s evidence, the optical network terminal (ONT) was missing, and the pigtail fibre cable was damaged. This was discovered when the next tenancy began on 5 June 2025. The e-mail from the owner to the property manager indicates the owner believes that, as the items were fixed equipment, they could not have been removed or damaged by accident, and must have been either intentionally or carelessly damaged.
While acknowledging the reasons, I find the landlord has not been able to establish, with sufficient evidence, that this damage likely occurred during this tenancy. The Network Damage Report completed by Chorus states that the ONT was removed, and the fibre cable was damaged during “renovations and cleaning.” It is unlikely that the tenant was undertaking any renovation work. In terms of whether the damage occurred during cleaning, the tenant’s evidence is that everything was working fine when she was at the property. Furthermore, the e-mail from the cost recovery specialist at Chorus states: Our records indicate a working connection at the property until the last week of May 2025, so the damage occurred between 24/05 and 9/06.”
In this case the tenancy ended on 23 May 2025. Therefore, it seems likely the damage occurred after the tenancy had ended. Tenants are only liable for damage that occurs during the tenancy.
The landlord accepts that no exit inspection report was completed on the last day of the tenancy or in the days immediately following. The damage is not evident from the inspection report that was provided at the hearing, which was completed on 3 June 2025. This report is noted to be a move in inspection report, presumably completed before the new tenants moved in, on 5 June 2025. The photograph of the damage, provided by Chorus, is dated 9 June 2025 and was taken over two weeks after the tenancy had ended.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression, and each has had some success. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315895 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315895 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions