What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5142491?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5142491?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5142491?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5142491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11856988-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5142491?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5142491?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5142491?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5142491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11856988-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1215 Kaiwaka-Mangawhai Road, Mangawhai, RD 5, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5142491 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began in November 2023.

The property is on tank water.

In January 2025, the tank ran out of water.

A dispute arose between the landlord and tenant about who was liable for the cost of filling the tank.

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”.

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.

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.

The hearing took place in Whangarei on 16 May 2025. Both parties attended the hearing.

At the hearing, Mr Noser 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

The rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants are governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

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

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

Landlords must also comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment 3 , which encompasses an obligation to ensure that residential buildings have an adequate supply of potable water. Findings

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.

The premises is a two-bedroom house. It has a 20,000 litre concrete tank and a 3,000 litre plastic tank.

The tanks collect water from the roof of the house, via the guttering and downpipes.

Water is fed to the house by a pump, though a single 20-micron filter.

A contractor (Phil, Mobi-Kair Water Tank Services) came to the property on 16 January to clean the tank. Mr Noser asked Phil to inspect the water collection system and provide a brief report, which Phil did by a text message on 17 January. Mr Noser 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

Phil 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

Mr Noser provided numerous photographs showing the gutters, downpipes, etc.

At the hearing, Mr & Mrs Noser provided a report that they had obtained from Go & Gas Plumbing. The report is in an email dated 15 May 2025.

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.

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.

There are, therefore, two very different export reports about the system.

Mr Noser’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 December / January, so the leaves / debris did not wash out of the gutters as they would in a period of regular rainfall.

Mr Noser’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.

The tenants have the burden of proof.

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.

Therefore I find that the landlord did not breach their legal duty. Mr Nose 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.

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.

Therefore, the application must be dismissed.

Reasons

Background