Tenant's Rent Reimbursement Claim Dismissed by Tenancy Tribunal
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's application for reimbursement of rent after finding that the landlord had maintained adequate water collection systems. The tenant claimed the landlord was responsible for refilling the water tank, but the Tribunal ruled against the tenant.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is not entitled to reimbursement of rent if the landlord has fulfilled their duty to maintain adequate water collection systems.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that a landlord must provide and maintain the rental property in a reasonable state of repair, considering its age and character, and how long it is expected to be lived in. It also requires the landlord to follow all building, health, and safety laws that apply to the property.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenant's application for reimbursement of rent due to insufficient evidence of inadequate water collection systems.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's application for reimbursement of rent after determining that the landlord had fulfilled their duty to maintain adequate water collection systems. The tenant argued that the landlord was liable for the cost of filling the water tank due to poor maintenance, but the Tribunal found that the evidence did not prove the system was inadequate.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5142491 1
[2025] NZTT 5142491
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT WHANGAREI | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: 1215 Kaiwaka-[ADDRESS], Mangawhai, RD 5, Mangawhai 0975
ORDER
The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
Background
1. The tenancy began in November 2023.
2. The property is on tank water.
3. In January 2025, the tank ran out of water.
4. A dispute arose between the landlord and tenant about who was liable for the cost of filling the tank.
5. On 17 January, the tenants gave the landlords a 5-working day notice requiring them to “repair and clean all the water collecting systems, gutters, pipes, tank etc [and supply] water to the water tank”.
6. The landlords responded the next day, questioning the legal validity of a 5-day breach notice, but also disputing that the water collecting systems needed repair, and refusing the request to refill the water tank.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5142491 2
7. On 18 January the tenants gave notice to terminate the tenancy, and they moved out shortly after that. They filed this Tenancy Tribunal application the same day.
8. The hearing took place in Whangarei on 16 May 2025. Both parties attended the hearing.
9. At the hearing, [NAME] clarified that the only monetary remedy that he is seeking is reimbursement of rent for the last few weeks of the tenancy after they moved out.
Law
10. The rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants are governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
11. Tenants are responsible for the cost of any outgoings (such as water, power, gas etc) that are exclusively attributable to their occupancy of the property.1
12. If a property is not on a reticulated water supply, the landlord must ensure that the premises has adequate means for the collection and storage of water.2
13. Landlords must also comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment3, which encompasses an obligation to ensure that residential buildings have an adequate supply of potable water.
Findings
14. Applying those principles, the tenants were liable for the cost of filling the tank in January unless the evidence shows that the premises did not have adequate means for the collection and storage of potable water.
15. The premises is a two-bedroom house. It has a 20,000 litre concrete tank and a 3,000 litre plastic tank.
16. The tanks collect water from the roof of the house, via the guttering and downpipes.
17. Water is fed to the house by a pump, though a single 20-micron filter.
18. A contractor ([NAME], [COMPANY]) came to the property on 16 January to clean the tank. [NAME] asked [NAME] to inspect the water collection system and provide a brief report, which [NAME] did by a text message on 17 January. [NAME] provided a screen shot of that message in his evidence.
1 Section 39(3) RTA 2 Section 45(1)(ca) RTA 3 Section 45(1)(c) RTA
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5142491 3
19. [NAME] states:
The results of my findings was that the system is in poor condition. Unfortunately I would suspect a lack of maintenance. Down pipe broken and missing, gutter falling in the wrong direction in places. Overhead pipe leading to water tank has a T which appears to be leaking when under demand. Weeds growing in the guttering etc. So in my professional opinion the small dwelling would only be collecting half of its potential
20. [NAME] provided numerous photographs showing the gutters, downpipes, etc.
21. At the hearing, [NAME] provided a report that they had obtained from [NAME]. The report is in an email dated 15 May 2025.
22. The report states:
Roof spouting and Downpipes
Eastern side
No leaks present.
The spouting is in reasonable condition with no pooling, indicating proper drainage and correct fall.
Western side
The pergola on this side has a separate downpipe that discharges into the stream, not for potable use.
Spouting is also in reasonable condition, with no pooling, showing correct drainage.
General assessment
The system appears well-maintained, with no leaks, pooling or significant issues present. The rainwater harvesting system is functioning as expected, with proper filtration in place for potable water use.
Given the age of the property, the stormwater system and rainwater harvesting setup are in satisfactory condition.
23. The Go & Gas report describes the condition of the system in May not in January, but I accept that the landlords did not make any relevant changes / repairs to the system over that period.
24. There are, therefore, two very different export reports about the system.
25. [NAME]’s photographs cannot show whether there are any leaks, or whether the fall on the gutters is correct. His photographs show some leaves / debris in the gutters, but not to the extent that should cause any issues with water collection. It is relevant that Mangahwai had experienced very dry conditions in
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5142491 4
December / January, so the leaves / debris did not wash out of the gutters as they would in a period of regular rainfall.
26. [NAME]’s photograph shows the broken / missing downpipe off the “pergola”, but this downpipe does not lead to the tank. It leads to a nearby stream. It is not part of the water harvesting system. The (somewhat basic) “flow diagram” on Go & Gas report suggests that the gutters on the canopy only collect rainfall from that small area. I have no other evidence to confirm or refute that argument.
27. The tenants have the burden of proof.
28. My finding is that:
a. The tank capacity is adequate for the size of the premises and the usual number of tenants.
b. The tanks are in acceptable condition.
c. It is not proven that the guttering and downpipe system is incapable of directing adequate amounts of water to the tanks.
d. The landlords met their duty to maintain the premises, including the rainwater collection systems, in a “reasonable” state of repair.
29. Therefore I find that the landlord did not breach their legal duty. [NAME] was free to give notice and to leave the property before the end of the notice period, but he remained liable for rent to the end of the tenancy.
30. The landlord and tenant had a genuine and ‘good faith’ disagreement about the cost of refilling the water tank, and it is unfortunate that this led to the ending of the tenancy. However, the only question that this Tribunal can determine is whether there is any legal basis to make an award of compensation or exemplary damages, and for the reasons given above my finding is that there is no basis in this instance.
31. Therefore, the application must be dismissed.
[NAME]
21 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5142491 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5142491 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 landlord fulfilled their duty to maintain adequate water collection systems.
- The tanks and water collection systems were deemed to be in acceptable condition.
- The tenants did not prove that the guttering and downpipe system was incapable of directing adequate amounts of water to the tanks.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenants argued that the landlord should reimburse rent due to inadequate water collection systems.
- The tenants claimed that the landlord breached their legal duty by not maintaining the water collection systems properly.
- The tenants believed that the landlord should be responsible for the cost of refilling the water tank.
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 reimbursement of rent.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about who was responsible for the cost of refilling the water tank after it ran out of water.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the landlord had fulfilled their duty to maintain adequate water collection systems, and thus the tenant was not entitled to reimbursement of rent.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 39(3), 45(1)(ca), and 45(1)(c) were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the evidence presented about the condition of the water collection systems.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have sufficient evidence to prove that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate water collection systems.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs and reports about the condition of the water collection systems mattered in the decision.