What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5319839?

The tribunal order states: Auckland City Mission Housing Limited Cherilee Ryan must pay Central West

How much money was awarded in case 5319839?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $233.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5319839?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5319839?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12951963-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5319839?

The tribunal order states: Auckland City Mission Housing Limited Cherilee Ryan must pay Central West

How much money was awarded in case 5319839?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $233.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5319839?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5319839?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12951963-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 22 Fowlds Avenue, Sandringham, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5319839 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5319839 — net $261.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Unpaid water rates	$233.11	Unpaid water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$261.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$261.11

Order

Auckland City Mission Housing Limited Cherilee Ryan must pay Central West Property Management Limited T/As Lj Hooker Ponsonby Rentals As Agent For Margaret Mccombie $261.11 immediately, calculated in the table below:

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 17 September 2020. By the time of the hearing on 8 October 2025, the tenancy had ended. The weekly rent was $450.00.
The landlord leased the premises to Auckland City Mission Housing Limited, a social housing provider.
The landlord filed an application seeking payment of outgoings, originally including water arrears and issues relating to storage of items in the carport. By the hearing, the landlord confirmed that the carport had been cleared and that the only remaining claim pursued was for unpaid water charges.
Both parties attended the hearing. The Landlord’s Position
The landlord seeks payment of unpaid water charges. The landlord’s evidence is that water charges were invoiced to the tenant over time and that multiple breaches were issued for non-payment.
The landlord explained that breaches were issued on 19 March 2025 for $455.56, on 19 May 2025 for $379.54, on 17 June 2025 for $394.72, and on 2 July 2025 again for $394.72. These amounts represented accumulated balances made up of multiple water invoices, rather than a single water invoice in each case.
The landlord stated that mediation was attempted but did not resolve the issue. At mediation, the tenant asserted that the invoices had been paid but declined to provide clear remittance advice. Following mediation, the landlord continued to request remittance information to allow reconciliation.
The landlord accepted that since the breaches were issued, the tenant has made further payments. Taking those payments into account, the landlord says the outstanding balance was now $233.11. The landlord seeks an order requiring payment of that amount, together with reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee. The Tenant’s Position
The tenant disputes liability for the outstanding water charges. The tenant says there has been financial mismanagement by the landlord and that invoices and amounts claimed were inconsistent and unclear.
The tenant says it was breached for amounts such as $394.72 without being provided with a clear invoice showing how that figure was made up. The tenant maintains that it repeatedly requested invoices so that its finance team could reconcile payments but did not receive a clear breakdown for the amount that was the subject of mediation.
The tenant says it provided remittance advice and bank records showing payments made. It raises concern that some payments may have been misallocated by the landlord to other properties and says it should not be held responsible for errors in the landlord’s accounting.
The tenant asks that the remaining balance of $233.11 be waived (including any other remaining invoice), arguing that it has already spent significant staff time reconciling accounts and that any remaining discrepancy is due to the landlord’s record-keeping rather than non-payment by the tenant.
The tenant also raised concerns about the broader relationship, including the fact that the tenancy ended after mediation, but accepted that those matters are not directly determinative of the water charges claim. Relevant Law
Under section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a tenant is responsible for payment of charges exclusively attributable to the tenant’s use of services such as water, where the tenancy agreement so provides.
The landlord bears the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the charges claimed are properly payable and remain unpaid. The Tribunal determines disputes based on the evidence presented; it does not undertake an independent audit of the parties’ accounts.
Where a tenant alleges that payments have been misallocated or that invoices are incorrect, the tenant must provide evidence showing that the amounts claimed have in fact been paid or that the claimed balance is wrong. Analysis
It is not in dispute that water charges were payable by the tenant under the tenancy agreement. The dispute is whether the landlord has established that $233.11 remains outstanding.
The landlord’s evidence explains that the breach notices issued for amounts such as $379.54 and $394.72 were not based on single invoices but reflected cumulative balances of multiple water charges at the time each breach was issued. This explanation is consistent with the tenancy invoice summaries provided, which show individual charges, payments received, and running balances.
The tenant’s concern that there was no single invoice for $394.72 is understandable. However, the absence of a single invoice for that exact amount does not mean the balance was incorrectly calculated. On the evidence, those figures represented accumulated arrears at specific points in time.
The tenant accepts that payments were made after breaches were issued and does not dispute that the landlord has credited those payments. The landlord accepts that further payments reduced the balance and now seeks only $233.11.
The tenant’s primary argument is that this remaining balance should be waived because it believes all invoices were paid and any discrepancy arises from misallocation by the landlord. However, the tenant has not produced clear evidence demonstrating that the remaining $233.11 has in fact been paid. The remittance advice provided was incomplete, contained duplications, and in some instances did not clearly identify the relevant property.
While the tenant raises legitimate frustration about the time spent reconciling accounts, frustration and administrative burden do not extinguish a debt that is otherwise proven. The Tribunal does not waive charges as a matter of equity or convenience. The question is whether the landlord has proven that the amount claimed remains unpaid.
On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the landlord has established an outstanding balance of $233.11 for water charges. The landlord’s reconciliation shows how that balance arises after taking into account all payments received. The tenant has not shown, on the balance of probabilities, that this amount has already been paid or wrongly calculated.
The Tribunal notes that it is not its role to conduct a forensic audit of accounting systems across multiple properties. The Tribunal decides the claim based on the evidence presented. In this case, that evidence supports the landlord’s claim. Findings
I find that water charges were payable by the tenant and that an outstanding balance of $233.11 remains unpaid.
The landlord also referred to a further water invoice dated September 2025 in the amount of $86.90. However, that amount was not clearly included in the relief sought, nor was it the subject of focused evidence and submissions at the hearing. In those circumstances, and to ensure procedural fairness, the Tribunal makes no order in respect of that amount.
The tenant’s request that the balance be waived is declined. There is no legal basis under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to waive a proven debt on the grounds advanced.
As the landlord has been successful, the tenant shall reimburse the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee pursuant to section 102(4) of the Act.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5319839 — net $261.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Unpaid water rates	$233.11	Unpaid water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$261.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$261.11

Order

Auckland City Mission Housing Limited Cherilee Ryan must pay Central West Property Management Limited T/As Lj Hooker Ponsonby Rentals As Agent For Margaret Mccombie $261.11 immediately, calculated in the table below:

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 17 September 2020. By the time of the hearing on 8 October 2025, the tenancy had ended. The weekly rent was $450.00.
The landlord leased the premises to Auckland City Mission Housing Limited, a social housing provider.
The landlord filed an application seeking payment of outgoings, originally including water arrears and issues relating to storage of items in the carport. By the hearing, the landlord confirmed that the carport had been cleared and that the only remaining claim pursued was for unpaid water charges.
Both parties attended the hearing. The Landlord’s Position
The landlord seeks payment of unpaid water charges. The landlord’s evidence is that water charges were invoiced to the tenant over time and that multiple breaches were issued for non-payment.
The landlord explained that breaches were issued on 19 March 2025 for $455.56, on 19 May 2025 for $379.54, on 17 June 2025 for $394.72, and on 2 July 2025 again for $394.72. These amounts represented accumulated balances made up of multiple water invoices, rather than a single water invoice in each case.
The landlord stated that mediation was attempted but did not resolve the issue. At mediation, the tenant asserted that the invoices had been paid but declined to provide clear remittance advice. Following mediation, the landlord continued to request remittance information to allow reconciliation.
The landlord accepted that since the breaches were issued, the tenant has made further payments. Taking those payments into account, the landlord says the outstanding balance was now $233.11. The landlord seeks an order requiring payment of that amount, together with reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee. The Tenant’s Position
The tenant disputes liability for the outstanding water charges. The tenant says there has been financial mismanagement by the landlord and that invoices and amounts claimed were inconsistent and unclear.
The tenant says it was breached for amounts such as $394.72 without being provided with a clear invoice showing how that figure was made up. The tenant maintains that it repeatedly requested invoices so that its finance team could reconcile payments but did not receive a clear breakdown for the amount that was the subject of mediation.
The tenant says it provided remittance advice and bank records showing payments made. It raises concern that some payments may have been misallocated by the landlord to other properties and says it should not be held responsible for errors in the landlord’s accounting.
The tenant asks that the remaining balance of $233.11 be waived (including any other remaining invoice), arguing that it has already spent significant staff time reconciling accounts and that any remaining discrepancy is due to the landlord’s record-keeping rather than non-payment by the tenant.
The tenant also raised concerns about the broader relationship, including the fact that the tenancy ended after mediation, but accepted that those matters are not directly determinative of the water charges claim. Relevant Law
Under section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a tenant is responsible for payment of charges exclusively attributable to the tenant’s use of services such as water, where the tenancy agreement so provides.
The landlord bears the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the charges claimed are properly payable and remain unpaid. The Tribunal determines disputes based on the evidence presented; it does not undertake an independent audit of the parties’ accounts.
Where a tenant alleges that payments have been misallocated or that invoices are incorrect, the tenant must provide evidence showing that the amounts claimed have in fact been paid or that the claimed balance is wrong. Analysis
It is not in dispute that water charges were payable by the tenant under the tenancy agreement. The dispute is whether the landlord has established that $233.11 remains outstanding.
The landlord’s evidence explains that the breach notices issued for amounts such as $379.54 and $394.72 were not based on single invoices but reflected cumulative balances of multiple water charges at the time each breach was issued. This explanation is consistent with the tenancy invoice summaries provided, which show individual charges, payments received, and running balances.
The tenant’s concern that there was no single invoice for $394.72 is understandable. However, the absence of a single invoice for that exact amount does not mean the balance was incorrectly calculated. On the evidence, those figures represented accumulated arrears at specific points in time.
The tenant accepts that payments were made after breaches were issued and does not dispute that the landlord has credited those payments. The landlord accepts that further payments reduced the balance and now seeks only $233.11.
The tenant’s primary argument is that this remaining balance should be waived because it believes all invoices were paid and any discrepancy arises from misallocation by the landlord. However, the tenant has not produced clear evidence demonstrating that the remaining $233.11 has in fact been paid. The remittance advice provided was incomplete, contained duplications, and in some instances did not clearly identify the relevant property.
While the tenant raises legitimate frustration about the time spent reconciling accounts, frustration and administrative burden do not extinguish a debt that is otherwise proven. The Tribunal does not waive charges as a matter of equity or convenience. The question is whether the landlord has proven that the amount claimed remains unpaid.
On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the landlord has established an outstanding balance of $233.11 for water charges. The landlord’s reconciliation shows how that balance arises after taking into account all payments received. The tenant has not shown, on the balance of probabilities, that this amount has already been paid or wrongly calculated.
The Tribunal notes that it is not its role to conduct a forensic audit of accounting systems across multiple properties. The Tribunal decides the claim based on the evidence presented. In this case, that evidence supports the landlord’s claim. Findings
I find that water charges were payable by the tenant and that an outstanding balance of $233.11 remains unpaid.
The landlord also referred to a further water invoice dated September 2025 in the amount of $86.90. However, that amount was not clearly included in the relief sought, nor was it the subject of focused evidence and submissions at the hearing. In those circumstances, and to ensure procedural fairness, the Tribunal makes no order in respect of that amount.
The tenant’s request that the balance be waived is declined. There is no legal basis under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to waive a proven debt on the grounds advanced.
As the landlord has been successful, the tenant shall reimburse the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee pursuant to section 102(4) of the Act.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5319839 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3, 22 Fowlds Avenue, Sandringham, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5319839 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3, 22 Fowlds Avenue, Sandringham, Auckland

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