What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5081148?

The tribunal order states: Dallas Tomo owes Oaks Property Management Limited as agent for Sri

How much money was awarded in case 5081148?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,837.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5081148?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5081148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11589699-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5081148?

The tribunal order states: Dallas Tomo owes Oaks Property Management Limited as agent for Sri

How much money was awarded in case 5081148?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,837.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5081148?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5081148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11589699-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Smith Avenue, Huntly, Waikato 3700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5081148 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5081148 — net $1,864.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates (to 11 February 2025	$1,837.89	Water rates (to 11 February 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,864.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,864.89

Dallas Tomo owes Oaks Property Management Limited as agent for Sri Property Investment Ltd $1,864.89 (“the debt”) as shown in the table below: DescriptionLandlord Water rates (to 11 February 2025)$1,837.89 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,864.89 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,864.89

Dallas Tomo must continue to pay current rent and must pay the full debt $1,864.89 on or before 4pm on Friday, 18 April 2025.

Payments will be allocated in the following order: rent, water rates, and the filing fee.

If the tenant fails to pay current rent and the debt within 2 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at 4 Smith Avenue, Huntly, Waikato 3700 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.

The landlord’s claim for water rates from 21 August 2023 to 8 February 2024 is dismissed.

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing by telephone.

The tenant did not join by the video link provided and did not answer calls to their mobile made during the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, outstanding water rates and refund of the bond.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days, and establish that the tenant has failed to do so. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord claims that the tenant breached their obligations by failing to water rates.

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). They are not liable for fixed water charges.

In relation to water charges, the District Court held in Woollams v Simpson (DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1583, 16 March 2006), that there was an implied term in the tenancy agreement that the landlord would provide water accounts at regular intervals, and within a reasonable time, to enable payment to be made. The Court determined that, because the landlord had failed to do so, the tenant was only required to pay the last two accounts, which covered a period of just over four months.

This tenancy started on 21 August 2023. The landlord did not provide water accounts until 14 September 2024. On that day it sent an invoice for water charges from 8 February 2024 to 7 August 2024 in the sum of $1,002.45. That claim is proved.

On 23 September 2024, the landlord claimed water rates of $1,239.42 for an earlier period. The landlord says that the amount claimed was from the start of the tenancy until 7 February 2024. The landlord received that invoice in March but did not act on it or claim it from the tenants for 6 months. Further the invoice from the council includes a period before this tenancy started. The Council invoice is from 9 August 2023 to 7 February 2024. Applying the Woollams decision, the claim for water rates from 21 August 2023 to 7 February 2024 is dismissed.

The landlord also claimed the most recent water rates invoice from the tenants. That was an invoice of $835.44, sent on 14 March 2025. That amount is proved. In summary, I award total water rates of $1,837.89 to 11 February 2025.

On 11 November 2024 the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant, but the breach was not remedied within the required period. The tenant has not engaged with the landlord regarding the outstanding water rates. The amount owing is significant. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, having heard the evidence I have granted a conditional termination, to provide the tenant with a final opportunity to pay the water rates. See section 78(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5081148 — net $1,864.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates (to 11 February 2025	$1,837.89	Water rates (to 11 February 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,864.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,864.89

Order

Dallas Tomo owes Oaks Property Management Limited as agent for Sri Property Investment Ltd $1,864.89 (“the debt”) as shown in the table below: DescriptionLandlord Water rates (to 11 February 2025)$1,837.89 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,864.89 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,864.89
Dallas Tomo must continue to pay current rent and must pay the full debt $1,864.89 on or before 4pm on Friday, 18 April 2025.
Payments will be allocated in the following order: rent, water rates, and the filing fee.
If the tenant fails to pay current rent and the debt within 2 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at 4 Smith Avenue, Huntly, Waikato 3700 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.
The landlord’s claim for water rates from 21 August 2023 to 8 February 2024 is dismissed.

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenant did not join by the video link provided and did not answer calls to their mobile made during the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, outstanding water rates and refund of the bond.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days, and establish that the tenant has failed to do so. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims that the tenant breached their obligations by failing to water rates.
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). They are not liable for fixed water charges.
In relation to water charges, the District Court held in Woollams v Simpson (DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1583, 16 March 2006), that there was an implied term in the tenancy agreement that the landlord would provide water accounts at regular intervals, and within a reasonable time, to enable payment to be made. The Court determined that, because the landlord had failed to do so, the tenant was only required to pay the last two accounts, which covered a period of just over four months.
This tenancy started on 21 August 2023. The landlord did not provide water accounts until 14 September 2024. On that day it sent an invoice for water charges from 8 February 2024 to 7 August 2024 in the sum of $1,002.45. That claim is proved.
On 23 September 2024, the landlord claimed water rates of $1,239.42 for an earlier period. The landlord says that the amount claimed was from the start of the tenancy until 7 February 2024. The landlord received that invoice in March but did not act on it or claim it from the tenants for 6 months. Further the invoice from the council includes a period before this tenancy started. The Council invoice is from 9 August 2023 to 7 February 2024. Applying the Woollams decision, the claim for water rates from 21 August 2023 to 7 February 2024 is dismissed.
The landlord also claimed the most recent water rates invoice from the tenants. That was an invoice of $835.44, sent on 14 March 2025. That amount is proved. In summary, I award total water rates of $1,837.89 to 11 February 2025.
On 11 November 2024 the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant, but the breach was not remedied within the required period. The tenant has not engaged with the landlord regarding the outstanding water rates. The amount owing is significant. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, having heard the evidence I have granted a conditional termination, to provide the tenant with a final opportunity to pay the water rates. See section 78(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5081148 — Tenancy dispute at 4 Smith Avenue, Huntly, Waikato 3700

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5081148 — Tenancy dispute at 4 Smith Avenue, Huntly, Waikato 3700

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions