What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5454838 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Chnz Property Limited As Agent For Min Xue $209.74

How much money was awarded in case 5454838?

Water Rates: $209.74 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5454838?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5454838?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13834979-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5454838 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Chnz Property Limited As Agent For Min Xue $209.74

How much money was awarded in case 5454838?

Water Rates: $209.74 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5454838?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5454838?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13834979-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 403, 27 Don McKinnon Drive, Albany, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5454838 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5454838 — net $209.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates for Nov 2024 – Jan 2025 period	$209.74	Water rates for Nov 2024 – Jan 2025 period
Net award	$209.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$209.74

This application was scheduled to be heard by video conference. The tenant did not connect to the Teams link and nor did she ring in to the hearing as directed in the Notice of Hearing sent to her. I rang the number provided for the tenant twice but both of my calls did not connect.

The hearing proceeded in her absence.

I note that an interpreter employed to assist the tenant was no longer needed since the tenant did not attend and so she was permitted to leave the hearing.

The landlord has applied to have two water bills paid by the tenant. The first is for the period November 2024 to January 2025 and amounts to $209.74.

The second is for the period 7 May 2025 to 17 June 2025 and amounts to $1,760.77.

I am ordering the tenant to pay the first of these water bills because that charge relates directly to her consumption of water – ss s3(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. (RTA).

The background to the second water bill is that the tenant went away overseas in January 2025. A Tribunal Order dated 26 June 2025 terminates her tenancy and orders the tenant to pay rent arrears. At that time the tenant was still absent from the tenancy.

For the period 7 May 2025 to 17 June 2025 a water bill of $1,760.77 was received for this tenancy. Prior to that, from January 2025, the water bills had been zero.

As a result of receiving this water bill the landlord attended the premises on 30 June 2025 and saw that a seal in the toilet had deteriorated to such an extent that water kept running through the toilet. The landlord immediately contacted a plumber to remedy this issue.

The landlord says that the tenant ought to pay this bill because: (a) The tenant ought to have turned the water off before leaving the tenancy for this extended period of time; and (b) The tenant ought to have arranged for a person to check on the premises while she was away; and (c) The tenant has an obligation under s40(1)(d) RTA to notify the landlord of any damage to the premises.

Had the tenant done any or all of these things, the landlord says that the issue with the toilet would have been addressed in a timely way, thereby reducing the amount of water flowing though the toilet.

I am dismissing the landlord’s claim and do so for reasons that include: (a) I do not consider it reasonable to expect a tenant to turn off water and/or arrange for another person to check on the premises while they are absent from the premises, even for an extended period of time; and (b) A degraded seal in the toilet is not reasonably foreseeable; and (c) The obligation on the tenant is to advise the landlord about issues with the tenancy as soon as possible after discovery – see s40(1)(d). The tenant was not there to discover the water flowing through the toilet and so was not obliged to advise the landlord of this issue. She could not have done so because she was not there; and (d) The tenant is only obliged to pay for water on the basis of consumption – see s39(4) RTA. The tenant was not at the tenancy for the May – June 2025 period and so she did not consume or use any water.

Further to this I am not allowing the landlord’s application for suppression of their name and reimbursement of the filing fee. This is because the landlord was not substantially successful in their claim against the tenant. C ter Haar 01 July 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5454838 — net $209.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates for Nov 2024 – Jan 2025 period	$209.74	Water rates for Nov 2024 – Jan 2025 period
Net award	$209.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$209.74

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Chnz Property Limited As Agent For Min Xue $209.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

This application was scheduled to be heard by video conference. The tenant did not connect to the Teams link and nor did she ring in to the hearing as directed in the Notice of Hearing sent to her. I rang the number provided for the tenant twice but both of my calls did not connect.
The hearing proceeded in her absence.
I note that an interpreter employed to assist the tenant was no longer needed since the tenant did not attend and so she was permitted to leave the hearing.
The landlord has applied to have two water bills paid by the tenant. The first is for the period November 2024 to January 2025 and amounts to $209.74.
The second is for the period 7 May 2025 to 17 June 2025 and amounts to $1,760.77.
I am ordering the tenant to pay the first of these water bills because that charge relates directly to her consumption of water – ss s3(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. (RTA).
The background to the second water bill is that the tenant went away overseas in January 2025. A Tribunal Order dated 26 June 2025 terminates her tenancy and orders the tenant to pay rent arrears. At that time the tenant was still absent from the tenancy.
For the period 7 May 2025 to 17 June 2025 a water bill of $1,760.77 was received for this tenancy. Prior to that, from January 2025, the water bills had been zero.
As a result of receiving this water bill the landlord attended the premises on 30 June 2025 and saw that a seal in the toilet had deteriorated to such an extent that water kept running through the toilet. The landlord immediately contacted a plumber to remedy this issue.
The landlord says that the tenant ought to pay this bill because: (a) The tenant ought to have turned the water off before leaving the tenancy for this extended period of time; and (b) The tenant ought to have arranged for a person to check on the premises while she was away; and (c) The tenant has an obligation under s40(1)(d) RTA to notify the landlord of any damage to the premises.
Had the tenant done any or all of these things, the landlord says that the issue with the toilet would have been addressed in a timely way, thereby reducing the amount of water flowing though the toilet.
I am dismissing the landlord’s claim and do so for reasons that include: (a) I do not consider it reasonable to expect a tenant to turn off water and/or arrange for another person to check on the premises while they are absent from the premises, even for an extended period of time; and (b) A degraded seal in the toilet is not reasonably foreseeable; and (c) The obligation on the tenant is to advise the landlord about issues with the tenancy as soon as possible after discovery – see s40(1)(d). The tenant was not there to discover the water flowing through the toilet and so was not obliged to advise the landlord of this issue. She could not have done so because she was not there; and (d) The tenant is only obliged to pay for water on the basis of consumption – see s39(4) RTA. The tenant was not at the tenancy for the May – June 2025 period and so she did not consume or use any water.
Further to this I am not allowing the landlord’s application for suppression of their name and reimbursement of the filing fee. This is because the landlord was not substantially successful in their claim against the tenant. C ter Haar 01 July 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5454838 — Tenancy dispute at Unit 403, 27 Don McKinnon Drive, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5454838 — Tenancy dispute at Unit 403, 27 Don McKinnon Drive, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions