Tenant Wins Water Charge Reimbursement
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled in favour of a tenant who sought reimbursement for water charges not based on consumption. The landlord did not attend the hearing, and the tenant was successful in their claim.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to reimbursement for water charges not based on consumption under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📖 What the law says
This rule generally states that the landlord is responsible for paying all property expenses, including rates, insurance, and water charges. However, it also says that a tenant must pay for water charges if the property has its own water meter and the tenancy agreement specifically mentioned this at the start of the tenancy.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant successfully sought reimbursement for water charges not based on consumption.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal awarded reimbursement to the tenant for water charges not based on consumption, as per the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord did not attend the hearing.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5171334 1
[2025] NZTT 5171334
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
2. [COMPANY] must pay [The tenant/s] $8,536.92 immediately, as set out in the table below.
Description Landlord Tenant Water reimbursement $8,509.92 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $8,536.92 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $8,536.92
Reasons:
1. The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend the hearing.
2. The tenant has applied for reimbursement of money paid for water during her tenancy on the basis that the water was used by two tenancies and there was no sub meter to determine the amount of water used by the tenant.
3. Section 39(4)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that the tenant is responsible for the charges incurred during the tenancy in respect of the
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5171334 2
premises for supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.
4. As the tenant was not charged on the basis of consumption she is entitled to be reimbursed.
5. The tenant had a mediation with her previous property manager ([NAME], T/A [NAME]) in November 2024. The property management company agreed to reimburse the tenant for $1,500.00 for costs that she paid for water for a 12 month period.
6. The tenant’s current property manager ([NAME]) has confirmed that she will not be charged for water used for the same reason.
7. The tenant is seeking reimbursement for her payment toward water from the beginning of her tenancy until 2023. The property management company that was involved at the beginning of the tenancy was also trading as [NAME] but at the time the company was owned by [COMPANY]. I am told that [NAME] changed ownership again before [NAME] became involved.
8. Given the change of ownership of the property management company these proceedings are brought against the owner of the premises. The proceedings were adjourned from 27 March 2025 to enable the current property manager (from [NAME]) to attend this hearing or provide the contact details for the owner.
9. [NAME] advised that the premises are owned by [COMPANY] ([NAME]). [NAME] was served with the proceedings on 9 April 2025. I note from the Tribunal file that [NAME] contacted the Tribunal on 10 April 2025 and confirmed that he is the owner of the property but said that he did not know what was happening with the tenancy.
10. [NAME] did not attend today’s hearing. As he has been served and given notice of today’s hearing I have proceeded in his absence.
11. I have awarded reimbursement of the costs for the water paid by the tenant (after deducting the $1,500.00 paid by [NAME]).
12. Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
[NAME] 28 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5171334 3
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5171334 4
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 was not charged for water based on actual consumption.
- The landlord did not attend the hearing, which likely weakened their defense.
- The property management company previously agreed to reimburse part of the water costs.
- The current property manager confirmed the tenant would not be charged for water in the future.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's request for reimbursement included payments made before the relevant law changes.
- The change in property management company ownership complicated the reimbursement process.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal decided to award the tenant reimbursement for water charges not based on consumption.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant was entitled to reimbursement for water charges not based on consumption.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the tenant because the water charges were not based on consumption, as stated in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 39(4)(c) was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant was not charged based on consumption, thus they were entitled to reimbursement.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may be able to seek reimbursement for water charges not based on consumption.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered.