Tribunal Rejects Termination but Orders Water Payments
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's request to end the tenancy but ordered the tenant to pay for accrued water rates. The landlord claimed outstanding water bills, while the tenant argued there was a leak causing high bills. The Tribunal ruled the water bills were accurate and ordered the tenant to pay them.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to challenge the accuracy of water bills and seek compensation if a leak is proven.
📖 What the law says
This rule allows the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy if the rent is at least 21 days overdue, or if the tenant has caused or threatened significant damage to the property, or has assaulted or threatened the landlord or their family/agent.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application for termination of the tenancy but ordered the tenant to pay accrued water rates.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application for termination of the tenancy but ordered the tenant to pay accrued water rates. The landlord claimed outstanding water rates, while the tenant alleged a leak at the property. The Tribunal found the water rates payable but did not find sufficient evidence of a leak.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5118555 1
[2025] NZTT 5118555
TENANCY TRIBUNAL - Palmerston North | Te Papaioea
APPLICANT: [redacted] [NAME])
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.
2. The [COMPANY] is to pay $504.70 from the bond to the landlord being $477.70 for water rates and $27.00 in reimbursement of the filing fee.
3. The balance of the bond of $575.30 is to remain at the [COMPANY].
4. The tenant is to pay $15.00 per week to the landlord beginning on 18 February 2024 on account of accrued water rates.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
Water rates
2. The landlord has applied for outstanding water rates and provided a copy of the invoice. She confirmed that the tenant had been paying regular instalments against the water rates and these amounts have been deducted from the total amount sought.
3. The landlord issued a 14-day notice to the tenant on 21 December 2024 and advised that the amount claimed had not been paid.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5118555 2
4. The tenant advised that she suspected there was a leak at the property as she was shocked to receive such a large bill. She noted that the toilet cistern appeared to be leaking into the toilet bowl and notified the landlord.
5. The landlord arranged to have a plumber inspect the cistern. The landlord advised that the plumber discovered a crack in the ballcock and replaced it. The landlord advised that the plumber believes any leak from this failure was “insignificant”.
6. The tenant gave evidence that the plumber told her that the leaking explained the water bill.
7. The landlord engaged with the local council responsible for the water rates to see if a remission was available. She provided the council with water meter readings seven days apart as directed by the council. She advised that the council told her that the readings revealed a greater rate of water use during that one-week period than during the period covered by the invoice. The council declined to make any remission.
8. The tenant advised that she believed that there was an undiscovered water leak at the property which explained the level of water rates. She did not provide any evidence in support of that belief.
9. The landlord gave evidence that the water invoice was similar to that for the neighbouring property which is also owned by the landlord.
10. On the evidence before the Tribunal the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the water rates as claimed are payable by the tenant. The tenant has not persuaded the Tribunal that there is a leak at the property so that the landlord should meet a portion of the water invoice.
11. The tenancy is due to end on 16 March 2025 and there will be a further invoice to cover the final portion of the tenancy. The tenant agreed to make weekly payments of $15.00 towards this final liability.
Termination
12. The landlord’s application is for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c) Residential Tenancy Act 1986 (“RTA”) on the basis that the tenant has threatened to assault the landlord.
13. The landlord provided in evidence a notice issued to the tenant recording the threat.
14. The tenant responsibly accepted that she had said those words or similar and apologised to the landlord. She explained that she was very upset to receive such a large bill for the water just before Christmas and felt that the landlord was contacting her excessively about it.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5118555 3
15. Section 55(1)(c) RTA provides that on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has threatened to assault any agent of the landlord.
16. The Tribunal may refuse to make the order sought by the landlord if it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which section 55 RTA applies. See section 55(2) RTA.
17. The High Court has determined that while the threat cannot be undone or remedied, the Tribunal retains the power to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach; and it is unlikely that the tenant will make further threats to assault the landlord’s agent.
18. In these circumstances, the landlord has not suffered any loss for which the tenant should pay compensation.
19. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is not necessary to terminate the tenancy because it is unlikely that the tenant will make further threats against the landlord. The tenancy is to end in just over four weeks. The tenant has expressed remorse at her words and understands the serious consequences they may have.
20. [COMPANY] (Trustees: [NAME] And [NAME]) has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
[NAME]
13 February 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5118555 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.
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5118555 5
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 proved that the water rates were accurate based on the balance of probabilities.
- The tenant agreed to make weekly payments towards the final water bill liability.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant argued that there was an undiscovered water leak but did not provide supporting evidence.
- The tenant threatened to assault the landlord but expressed remorse and understood the seriousness of her actions.
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 landlord's application to terminate the tenancy but ordered the tenant to pay accrued water rates.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant owed outstanding water rates and whether the tenancy should be terminated.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the termination application but ordered the tenant to pay the water rates because the landlord proved the water rates were payable.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 54 and 55 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the landlord's proof that the water rates were accurate and payable.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partly for and partly against the landlord. The termination application was dismissed, but the tenant was ordered to pay the water rates.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have evidence to prove any discrepancies in utility bills, especially if they suspect a leak.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence of water invoices and the inspection report by the plumber mattered in this case.