What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5181832?

The tribunal order states: Alethea Wolfgang must pay Buy West Property Management Limited $234.51

How much money was awarded in case 5181832?

Compensation: Toilet Leak: $153.47 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $360.98 awarded to landlord

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5181832?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11893443-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5181832?

The tribunal order states: Alethea Wolfgang must pay Buy West Property Management Limited $234.51

How much money was awarded in case 5181832?

Compensation: Toilet Leak: $153.47 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $360.98 awarded to landlord

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5181832?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11893443-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3A Cherry Tree Place, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5181832 — Leaks

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5181832 — net $234.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates owed to 23 April 2025	$360.98		Water rates owed to 23 April 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: toilet leak		$153.47	toilet leak
Total award	$387.98	$153.47
Net award	$234.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$234.51

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone with Mr Lee representing the landlord.

The landlord seeks an order for outstanding water rates. The original amount sought in the application was $203.89. As at the hearing date the amount owed is $360.98 for the billing period ending 23 April 2025.

The tenant, Ms Wolfgang, accepts the amount of water rates owed. However, she explained that there had been a toilet leak at the premises for which she seeks compensation because it was not fixed for 16 weeks. Therefore, she has not paid the recent water rates bills. I would caution the tenant that she is obliged to pay the bills regardless of any claim for compensation that might offset the amount owed. The proper process is for her to apply to the Tribunal for compensation in the absence of reaching an agreement with the landlord.

The tenant has calculated that the extra water used because of the toilet leak would cost $153.47 over the period of 16 weeks. The landlord accepts the calculation but argues that it is only payable for a period of 4 weeks.

Ms Wolfgang says that she reported the problem with the toilet cistern leaking to Mr Lee during a routine inspection on 1 August 2024. She said that water was dripping into the bowl from the cistern. This would then cause the cistern to refill even when the toilet had not been flushed. You could hear the water refilling regularly. Mr Lee inspected the cistern and said he could not see any leak. Ms Wolfgang said she explained to him that this was because of “laminar flow” where fluid (like water) moves in thin, parallel layers without mixing or eddies. The running water appears still, due to smooth, parallel flow.

In any event, Ms Wolfgang’s evidence is that Mr Lee said he would send someone to look at the problem. However, this did not happen. Ms Wolfgang says that she did not follow up with the landlord because she is used to them taking time to organise repairs. When the landlord did another inspection on 31 October 2024, she raised the leak again and Mr Lee said he would send someone to fix it. Ms Wolfgang sent follow up messages asking for it to be fixed on 2,8 and 15 November. A plumber finally fixed the leak on 25 November.

Mr Lee’s evidence is that he could not detect a leak at the inspection on 1 August 2024 and asked the tenant to monitor and report if the leak occurred again. He denies he advised the tenant that he would instruct a plumber to investigate. He says the tenant did not report any further problem until 31 October at the next routine inspection. He understood that she was reporting a second leak. On that basis, he says the landlord only accepts some compensation payable to the tenant for the 4-week delay between her reporting the leak on 31 October and having the toilet fixed on 25 November. Therefore they only agree to pay 25% of the proposed compensation calculation which covers 16 weeks. The landlord produced the plumber’s invoice which confirmed that he supplied and fitted a new outlet washer and fill valve kit to the cistern which fixed the leak into the toilet bowl.

The Tribunal asked Mr Lee if he documented the toilet leak reported at the 1 August inspection and his advice that the tenant monitor and report any further leak. He said that he had not. Therefore, there is no record in any inspection report or follow-up email, that he inspected the issue, found no leak, and asked the tenant to monitor and advise if the leak happened again.

Ms Wolfgang denies that she was asked to monitor and advise if the leak occurred again. She also says that this does not make sense and the leak should have been addressed after she reported it on 1 August.

After carefully considering the available evidence, I am satisfied that the leak was reported on 1 August 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord advised the tenant simply to monitor and report any further problem. Having reported the leak, I consider the tenant was not obliged to keep chasing the landlord for repairs. The onus was on the landlord to investigate and repair the problem in a reasonable time limit. Therefore, I accept that Ms Wolfgang is entitled to compensation sought for the cistern leak occurring over a 16-week period, as claimed, and calculated.

While the tenant has defended part of the amount sought by the landlord, I consider she was not entitled to withhold payment of water rates due without the landlord’s consent or an order of the Tribunal. For that reason, the tenant is ordered to reimburse the filing fee on the application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5181832 — net $234.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates owed to 23 April 2025	$360.98		Water rates owed to 23 April 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: toilet leak		$153.47	toilet leak
Total award	$387.98	$153.47
Net award	$234.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$234.51

Order

Alethea Wolfgang must pay Buy West Property Management Limited $234.51 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone with Mr Lee representing the landlord.
The landlord seeks an order for outstanding water rates. The original amount sought in the application was $203.89. As at the hearing date the amount owed is $360.98 for the billing period ending 23 April 2025.
The tenant, Ms Wolfgang, accepts the amount of water rates owed. However, she explained that there had been a toilet leak at the premises for which she seeks compensation because it was not fixed for 16 weeks. Therefore, she has not paid the recent water rates bills. I would caution the tenant that she is obliged to pay the bills regardless of any claim for compensation that might offset the amount owed. The proper process is for her to apply to the Tribunal for compensation in the absence of reaching an agreement with the landlord.
The tenant has calculated that the extra water used because of the toilet leak would cost $153.47 over the period of 16 weeks. The landlord accepts the calculation but argues that it is only payable for a period of 4 weeks.
Ms Wolfgang says that she reported the problem with the toilet cistern leaking to Mr Lee during a routine inspection on 1 August 2024. She said that water was dripping into the bowl from the cistern. This would then cause the cistern to refill even when the toilet had not been flushed. You could hear the water refilling regularly. Mr Lee inspected the cistern and said he could not see any leak. Ms Wolfgang said she explained to him that this was because of “laminar flow” where fluid (like water) moves in thin, parallel layers without mixing or eddies. The running water appears still, due to smooth, parallel flow.
In any event, Ms Wolfgang’s evidence is that Mr Lee said he would send someone to look at the problem. However, this did not happen. Ms Wolfgang says that she did not follow up with the landlord because she is used to them taking time to organise repairs. When the landlord did another inspection on 31 October 2024, she raised the leak again and Mr Lee said he would send someone to fix it. Ms Wolfgang sent follow up messages asking for it to be fixed on 2,8 and 15 November. A plumber finally fixed the leak on 25 November.
Mr Lee’s evidence is that he could not detect a leak at the inspection on 1 August 2024 and asked the tenant to monitor and report if the leak occurred again. He denies he advised the tenant that he would instruct a plumber to investigate. He says the tenant did not report any further problem until 31 October at the next routine inspection. He understood that she was reporting a second leak. On that basis, he says the landlord only accepts some compensation payable to the tenant for the 4-week delay between her reporting the leak on 31 October and having the toilet fixed on 25 November. Therefore they only agree to pay 25% of the proposed compensation calculation which covers 16 weeks. The landlord produced the plumber’s invoice which confirmed that he supplied and fitted a new outlet washer and fill valve kit to the cistern which fixed the leak into the toilet bowl.
The Tribunal asked Mr Lee if he documented the toilet leak reported at the 1 August inspection and his advice that the tenant monitor and report any further leak. He said that he had not. Therefore, there is no record in any inspection report or follow-up email, that he inspected the issue, found no leak, and asked the tenant to monitor and advise if the leak happened again.
Ms Wolfgang denies that she was asked to monitor and advise if the leak occurred again. She also says that this does not make sense and the leak should have been addressed after she reported it on 1 August.
After carefully considering the available evidence, I am satisfied that the leak was reported on 1 August 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord advised the tenant simply to monitor and report any further problem. Having reported the leak, I consider the tenant was not obliged to keep chasing the landlord for repairs. The onus was on the landlord to investigate and repair the problem in a reasonable time limit. Therefore, I accept that Ms Wolfgang is entitled to compensation sought for the cistern leak occurring over a 16-week period, as claimed, and calculated.
While the tenant has defended part of the amount sought by the landlord, I consider she was not entitled to withhold payment of water rates due without the landlord’s consent or an order of the Tribunal. For that reason, the tenant is ordered to reimburse the filing fee on the application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5181832 — Leaks at 3A Cherry Tree Place, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5181832 — Leaks at 3A Cherry Tree Place, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions