Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5328008 — Leaks at 224 Godley Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604
Decided 23 Oct 2025 · Published 23 Oct 2025 · Application 5328008
- Leaks
Order
- Jade Catherine Kata must pay Spectre Property Management Services Limited $283.26 immediately, being $255.26 for water rates arrears to 26/09/2025 and and $28.00 for the application filing fee. Attendance:
- The applicant attended the hearing by phone. The respondent did not answer when contacted.
What is the applicant is seeking?
- The applicant is asking me to order payment of water rates arrears and a plumbing in voice of $550.29
Is the tenant liable for the water rates arrears?
- The applicant has provided bills showing the amount owing. I am satisfied this amount is owing and is awarded.
Is the tenant liable for the plumbers invoice?
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. This means that the party bringing the application bears the onus of proving their claims on the balance of probabilities. They must satisfy the Tribunal that it is more likely than not that the matters alleged are the responsibility of the respondent.
- The applicant states that the invoice relates to the unblocking of a toilet, which she says was caused by blockages attributable to the tenant. However, the plumber’s invoice provides a detailed description of the work undertaken and does not clearly attribute the blockage to the tenant. The plumber notes that the obstruction was “dry,” indicating that it had been present for some time, and a photograph attached to the invoice shows some form of material blocking the toilet. The nature of this material is unclear and is not identified in the plumber’s report.
- The description that the blockage was dry and had been there for a long time is inconsistent with the applicant’s explanation that the toilet had been blocked for an extended period due to tenant misuse. If that were the case, it would be unlikely that the material would have dried out. Further details in the invoice indicate that there were issues with the toilet inlet which were repaired, and that the silicon sealing was deteriorated and required replacement as it was no longer holding the toilet securely in place.
- Taken together, this evidence suggests that the work carried out was largely of a maintenance nature and addressed issues that developed over time. It is not impossible that the tenant may have contributed to the blockage; however, the evidence does not establish this to the requisite standard. The probability that the tenant caused the blockage does not exceed 50%, and to meet the civil standard of proof, liability must be established on the balance of probabilities, that is, at least 51%. I am not satisfied that this threshold has been met.
- This claim is therefore dismissed. Application filing fee:
- The applicant has substantially succeeded in their application and the filing fee is awarded. H Ben Fayed 23 October 2025
Property management
- SPECTRE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED (applicant)