Tenant's Application for Water Charges Refund Dismissed
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenant's request for a full refund of water charges because the tenant did not provide enough evidence to prove their claim.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is not entitled to a full refund of water charges if they have not provided sufficient evidence to prove their claim.
📖 What the law says
This rule generally states that the landlord is responsible for paying all property expenses, including water charges. However, there's an exception: tenants must pay water charges if the property has its own water meter and the tenancy agreement clearly stated this at the beginning of the tenancy.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's application for a refund of water charges was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenant's application for a full refund of water charges from 11 June 2021 to 12 November 2024, finding that the tenant failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5156633 1
[2025] NZTT 5156633
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing via remote video conference.
2. The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
3. Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
4. The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
5. With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
6. 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 un-likely, 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5156633 2
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The tenancy began on 11 June 2021 and concluded on 12 November 2024.
10. The tenant claims a full refund of $3161.20 being what she says as the money paid by her towards water usage. She states that she was paying $20.00 per week for water usage and should not have to pay the invoices sent to her by the landlord. The landlord has not filed an application with the Tribunal for payment of these invoices.
11. The tenancy agreement signed and dated 11 June 2021 recorded the following details:
a. Rent per week $210.00
b. 2 weeks rent in advance $420.00
c. Bond amount $840.00
d. Water $30.00
12. The tenant advises that she was working at the start of the tenancy and was paying her own rent. The tenant further states that she was paying $20.00 per week towards water. She stated during the hearing that on 7 November 2022 she received a letter from [NAME] with an overdue account.
13. The tenant stopped working during COVID and was forced to go on to a Work and Income New Zealand (“WINZ”) benefit. WINZ noticed that she was paying too much rent and gave her a credit which was then applied to her small rent debt with the landlord for the first months’ rent.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5156633 3
14. The landlord says that on 19 September 2022 the tenant was sent an invoice for $168.53 for water. By that time the tenant had been making her weekly payments of $20.00 and was in credit by $320.00. The credit was applied to the September 2022 account. The next account was February 2023 for $202.27 covering the period July 2022 to August 2022 along with an invoice for $346.75 which covered the period September 2022 to December 2022.
15. The landlord stated during the hearing that the tenant has paid a total of $1600.00 in the form of her weekly payments, although based on the payment schedule provided with the application the total appears to be $1760.00.
16. The landlord also confirmed during the hearing that water invoices for the period of the tenancy total $3161.20. The total of the invoices based on the schedule is $2992.67.
17. The bond of $516.00 was refunded on 29 January 2025 and $467.00 of this money was applied to outstanding water charges. The tenant initially disputed granting authority for the bond to be released. The landlord provided a bond refund form to the Tribunal during the hearing clearly showing the tenant’s signature on the refund form. The tenant also accepted during the hearing that it was her signature on the form.
18. The tenant provided evidence in the form of several emails from the landlord. One of these emails dated 27 May 2024 from [NAME] noted that “if you were not on a payment plan for water, you would pay this bill in full. However, because you are contributing to your water every week, you do not have to worry about this water bill.”
19. A further email from the landlord dated 4 April 2024 noted that, “I believe on your tenancy agreement as discussed with [NAME], water is $30.00 a week, this is to cover your consumption.”
The law
20. Is the tenant entitled to a full refund of the water paid from 11 June 2021 to 12 November 2024, when the rent was recorded as $210.00 per week plus water?
21. A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or to their use of the facilities (see s 39(3) RTA). Therefore, tenants are only liable for the electricity, gas, telephone and internet they use, and for water charges based on consumption (s 39(4) RTA).
22. A tenant’s responsibility to pay water usage charges depends on the terms outlined in the Tenancy Agreement. If the premises have a separate water meter, the tenant should be directly invoiced for their actual water consumption. They are not liable for the payment of any fixed charges. While the tenant is responsible for the timely payment of water charges there is also an expectation that landlords will issue invoices for payment with out delay.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5156633 4
Analysis
23. It is clear from todays’ video hearing that this has been an immensely frustrating exercise for the tenant. Instead of having a simplified approach where water invoices are sent each month, we have a situation where the owner of the property sent invoices spasmodically. On one occasion a water invoice of more than $800.00 was emailed to the tenant. This no doubt would have caused the tenant significant stress and anxiety.
24. That being said, the tenant has paid between $1600.00 and $1760.00 for water from 24 February 2022 to 31 October 2024. There was also an additional amount of $467.00 paid from the bond towards water. The tenant has not provided evidence that she has paid more than this.
25. The landlord’s payment schedule confirms total water invoices of $2992.67. The landlord also provided copies of all water invoices to the Tribunal after the hearing as requested.
26. Based on the evidence provided I am satisfied that the weekly payments made by the tenant have not exceeded the invoiced amounts as provided by the landlord. In fact, it would appear that overall, the tenant has had the benefit of paying less than the total amount of all invoices. This is confirmed by the payment schedule which appears to show an amount outstanding to the landlord as at 29 January 2025.
27. The landlord has not filed an application with the Tribunal for any outstanding charges. The landlord also confirmed during the hearing that they are not pursuing any further outstanding charges against the tenant.
28. While I sympathise with the tenant’s position the reality is that if I were to allow her application and order payment of the amount sought this would effectively mean that she would have had free water usage for the duration of the tenancy. It is just unfortunate that the landlord was somewhat remiss in their communications regarding the water charges.
29. The tenant’s application must therefore be dismissed.
[NAME]
16 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5156633 5
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.
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5156633 6
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].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant provided emails indicating she was contributing weekly to water charges.
- The landlord confirmed the tenant had paid between $1600.00 and $1760.00 for water over the tenancy period.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove she had overpaid for water charges.
- The tenant did not provide independent witnesses or corroborating documents to support her claim for a full refund.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenant's application for a full refund of water charges.
What was the dispute about?
The tenant asked for a full refund of water charges paid over the course of the tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided against the tenant because the tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 39(3) and 39(4) were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the tenant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have sufficient evidence to support their claim before applying to the Tenancy Tribunal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment mentions emails from the landlord and a payment schedule, but notes that the tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.