VadeLab
Allowed in PartTenancy Tribunal·

Tenant Ordered to Pay Water Rates and Compensated for Leak

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay outstanding water rates and awarded compensation for a toilet leak that caused increased water usage over a 16-week period.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to compensation for damage that results in increased water usage.

Topics

water ratescompensation for damage

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay outstanding water rates and awarded compensation for a toilet leak.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay outstanding water rates and awarded compensation for a toilet leak that caused increased water usage over a 16-week period.

📚 Full judgment Official document

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5181832 1

[2025] NZTT 5181832

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA

APPLICANT: [redacted]

Landlord

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Tenant

TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ORDER

1. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] $234.51 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Description Landlord Tenant Water rates owed to 23 April 2025 $360.98 Compensation: toilet leak $153.47 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $387.98 $153.47 Net award $234.51 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $234.51

Reasons:

1. Both parties attended the hearing by telephone with [NAME] representing the landlord.

2. The landlord seeks an order for outstanding water rates. The original amount sought in the application was $203.89. As at the hearing date the amount owed is $360.98 for the billing period ending 23 April 2025.

3. The tenant, [NAME], accepts the amount of water rates owed. However, she explained that there had been a toilet leak at the premises for which she

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5181832 2

seeks compensation because it was not fixed for 16 weeks. Therefore, she has not paid the recent water rates bills. I would caution the tenant that she is obliged to pay the bills regardless of any claim for compensation that might offset the amount owed. The proper process is for her to apply to the Tribunal for compensation in the absence of reaching an agreement with the landlord.

4. The tenant has calculated that the extra water used because of the toilet leak would cost $153.47 over the period of 16 weeks. The landlord accepts the calculation but argues that it is only payable for a period of 4 weeks.

5. [NAME] says that she reported the problem with the toilet cistern leaking to [NAME] during a routine inspection on 1 August 2024. She said that water was dripping into the bowl from the cistern. This would then cause the cistern to refill even when the toilet had not been flushed. You could hear the water refilling regularly. [NAME] inspected the cistern and said he could not see any leak. [NAME] said she explained to him that this was because of “laminar flow” where fluid (like water) moves in thin, parallel layers without mixing or eddies. The running water appears still, due to smooth, parallel flow.

6. In any event, [NAME]’s evidence is that [NAME] said he would send someone to look at the problem. However, this did not happen. [NAME] says that she did not follow up with the landlord because she is used to them taking time to organise repairs. When the landlord did another inspection on 31 October 2024, she raised the leak again and [NAME] said he would send someone to fix it. [NAME] sent follow up messages asking for it to be fixed on 2,8 and 15 November. A plumber finally fixed the leak on 25 November.

7. [NAME]’s evidence is that he could not detect a leak at the inspection on 1 August 2024 and asked the tenant to monitor and report if the leak occurred again. He denies he advised the tenant that he would instruct a plumber to investigate. He says the tenant did not report any further problem until 31 October at the next routine inspection. He understood that she was reporting a second leak. On that basis, he says the landlord only accepts some compensation payable to the tenant for the 4-week delay between her reporting the leak on 31 October and having the toilet fixed on 25 November. Therefore they only agree to pay 25% of the proposed compensation calculation which covers 16 weeks. The landlord produced the plumber’s invoice which confirmed that he supplied and fitted a new outlet washer and fill valve kit to the cistern which fixed the leak into the toilet bowl.

8. The Tribunal asked [NAME] if he documented the toilet leak reported at the 1 August inspection and his advice that the tenant monitor and report any further leak. He said that he had not. Therefore, there is no record in any inspection report or follow-up email, that he inspected the issue, found no leak, and asked the tenant to monitor and advise if the leak happened again.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5181832 3

9. [NAME] denies that she was asked to monitor and advise if the leak occurred again. She also says that this does not make sense and the leak should have been addressed after she reported it on 1 August.

10. After carefully considering the available evidence, I am satisfied that the leak was reported on 1 August 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord advised the tenant simply to monitor and report any further problem. Having reported the leak, I consider the tenant was not obliged to keep chasing the landlord for repairs. The onus was on the landlord to investigate and repair the problem in a reasonable time limit. Therefore, I accept that [NAME] is entitled to compensation sought for the cistern leak occurring over a 16-week period, as claimed, and calculated.

11. While the tenant has defended part of the amount sought by the landlord, I consider she was not entitled to withhold payment of water rates due without the landlord’s consent or an order of the Tribunal. For that reason, the tenant is ordered to reimburse the filing fee on the application.

[NAME]

26 May 2025

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5181832 4

Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.

Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.

You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf

Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals

Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.

Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.

Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.

If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].

Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].

https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/

Reasons:

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The tenant reported a toilet leak during a routine inspection.
  • The landlord did not document the inspection or follow-up advice.
  • The tenant calculated the extra water usage cost due to the leak.
  • The leak caused increased water usage for 16 weeks.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The landlord argued that compensation should only cover a 4-week delay.
  • The landlord claimed the tenant was asked to monitor and report any further leaks.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tenant was ordered to pay outstanding water rates and received compensation for a toilet leak that caused increased water usage over a 16-week period.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about whether the tenant should pay outstanding water rates and whether compensation was due for a toilet leak that caused increased water usage.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the tenant should pay the outstanding water rates and awarded compensation for the toilet leak because the landlord failed to address the leak in a reasonable time frame.

Which laws or rules were applied?

No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the tenant's evidence that the leak was reported and not promptly addressed by the landlord.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was partly for and partly against the person who brought the case, as the tenant was ordered to pay water rates but also received compensation.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure they report issues promptly and seek compensation through the appropriate channels if the issue is not resolved.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence of the tenant reporting the leak and the landlord's failure to address it in a timely manner mattered most.

Official source: Tenancy Tribunal headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Tenancy Tribunal and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.
Tenant Ordered to Pay Water Rates and Compensated for Leak | VadeLab