What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5351942 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 5351942?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5351942?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5351942?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13101531-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5351942 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 5351942?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5351942?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5351942?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13101531-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room Suite 27, 88 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5351942 — Leaks

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background:
The landlord seeks an order requiring the tenant to pay two water bills amounting to $2661.68 for the period of June 2025 to August 2025. The tenant stated that her average water bills per month were approximately $80.00.
After the tenant receive the first high water bill dated 23 July 2025, she immediately contacted the landlord to report an issue with the water. The tenant says she was unaware of any issues with the toilet at this stage but assumed that there was a water leak somewhere in the property.
The landlord sent a plumber on 10 August 2025 who identifying a fault with the toilet that was causing water to run constantly and repaired the toilet that day.
After the next high water bill the landlord sent the plumber back to check and he found no further issues. The water bills returned to normal once the toilet was fixed.
The landlord approached Water Care and the Body Corp to get a water leak rebate. Water Care and the Body Corp declined to assist with any rebate and the landlord turned to the tenant for the water bill.
The landlord says that the tenant failed to advise them that there was a problem with the toilet and therefore causing the water leak and subsequent invoices. The landlord claims that the tenant should have noticed the leak and therefore is responsible.
The tenant says she was not aware of the leak and there is no evidence, nor suggestion that she has done anything to cause the toilet leak. Legal principles:
Section 45 (1) (b) of the residential tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires landlords to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. This includes ensuring that plumbing fixtures, such as toilets, are in good working order.
Section 40 (1) (d) of the RTA requires tenants to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage or need for repairs.
The general principle is that landlords are responsible for the cost of repairs and for water charges resulting from wear and tear or faults not caused by the tenant.
Tenants may only be liable for water charges arising from their own actions, negligence, or failure to report a problem they knew or ought to reasonable have known about.
During the hearing, the landlord called a witness, Mr Ben Davies the registered plumber who attended to the toilet leak and conducted the repair.
Mr Davies gave evidence of what he found and what he did to fix the toilet. I asked Mr Davies if the toilet leak would have been obvious to the tenant. His opinion was that the tenant may not have noticed the water running inside the toilet bowl and that many people are unaware of the issue until receiving the high water bills. Furthermore, Mr Davies said that the running water may have been difficult to see, as the water was not pouring. Standard of Proof:
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. Findings:
There is no evidence that the tenant caused the toilet to leak or that she was aware, or ought reasonably to have been aware, of the leak before the water bills were issued. The leak appears to be a maintenance issue, not the result of tenant negligence or deliberate action. The tenant’s obligation is to report issues once discovered, but she cannot be held liable for a hidden or undetectable fault.
I find that as the leak was not caused by the tenant and there is no evidence of a failure to report a known issue, the landlord is responsible for the water bills arising from the leaking toilet. I have considered the evidence in particular Mr Davies and his opinion that the tenant may well not have been aware of the leak.
The application for the tenant to pay the water bills is dismissed. Suppression:
As I have found that the tenant is not liable for the water bills and that she was not at fault, I am granting her suppression of her name and identifying details. Filing Fee:
As the landlord has been unsuccessful with their claim, I am not awarding reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background:
The landlord seeks an order requiring the tenant to pay two water bills amounting to $2661.68 for the period of June 2025 to August 2025. The tenant stated that her average water bills per month were approximately $80.00.
After the tenant receive the first high water bill dated 23 July 2025, she immediately contacted the landlord to report an issue with the water. The tenant says she was unaware of any issues with the toilet at this stage but assumed that there was a water leak somewhere in the property.
The landlord sent a plumber on 10 August 2025 who identifying a fault with the toilet that was causing water to run constantly and repaired the toilet that day.
After the next high water bill the landlord sent the plumber back to check and he found no further issues. The water bills returned to normal once the toilet was fixed.
The landlord approached Water Care and the Body Corp to get a water leak rebate. Water Care and the Body Corp declined to assist with any rebate and the landlord turned to the tenant for the water bill.
The landlord says that the tenant failed to advise them that there was a problem with the toilet and therefore causing the water leak and subsequent invoices. The landlord claims that the tenant should have noticed the leak and therefore is responsible.
The tenant says she was not aware of the leak and there is no evidence, nor suggestion that she has done anything to cause the toilet leak. Legal principles:
Section 45 (1) (b) of the residential tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires landlords to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. This includes ensuring that plumbing fixtures, such as toilets, are in good working order.
Section 40 (1) (d) of the RTA requires tenants to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage or need for repairs.
The general principle is that landlords are responsible for the cost of repairs and for water charges resulting from wear and tear or faults not caused by the tenant.
Tenants may only be liable for water charges arising from their own actions, negligence, or failure to report a problem they knew or ought to reasonable have known about.
During the hearing, the landlord called a witness, Mr Ben Davies the registered plumber who attended to the toilet leak and conducted the repair.
Mr Davies gave evidence of what he found and what he did to fix the toilet. I asked Mr Davies if the toilet leak would have been obvious to the tenant. His opinion was that the tenant may not have noticed the water running inside the toilet bowl and that many people are unaware of the issue until receiving the high water bills. Furthermore, Mr Davies said that the running water may have been difficult to see, as the water was not pouring. Standard of Proof:
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. Findings:
There is no evidence that the tenant caused the toilet to leak or that she was aware, or ought reasonably to have been aware, of the leak before the water bills were issued. The leak appears to be a maintenance issue, not the result of tenant negligence or deliberate action. The tenant’s obligation is to report issues once discovered, but she cannot be held liable for a hidden or undetectable fault.
I find that as the leak was not caused by the tenant and there is no evidence of a failure to report a known issue, the landlord is responsible for the water bills arising from the leaking toilet. I have considered the evidence in particular Mr Davies and his opinion that the tenant may well not have been aware of the leak.
The application for the tenant to pay the water bills is dismissed. Suppression:
As I have found that the tenant is not liable for the water bills and that she was not at fault, I am granting her suppression of her name and identifying details. Filing Fee:
As the landlord has been unsuccessful with their claim, I am not awarding reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5351942 — Leaks at Room Suite 27, 88 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5351942 — Leaks at Room Suite 27, 88 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions