What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5418752?

The tribunal order states: Kristan Alexandra Roberts must pay Rv Inz Limited As Agent For Rashi Parmar

How much money was awarded in case 5418752?

Water Rates: $501.19 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418752?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418752?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13388314-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5418752?

The tribunal order states: Kristan Alexandra Roberts must pay Rv Inz Limited As Agent For Rashi Parmar

How much money was awarded in case 5418752?

Water Rates: $501.19 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418752?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418752?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13388314-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 65 Princes Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5418752 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5418752 — net $501.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$501.19	Water rates
Net award	$501.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$501.19

Order

Kristan Alexandra Roberts must pay Rv Inz Limited As Agent For Rashi Parmar $501.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing held on 1 April 2026 by video. The tenant did not attend the hearing. An attempt was made to join the tenant to the hearing by telephone, but the call went unanswered.
The landlord has applied for water rates amounting to $12,450.80.
For the first three months of the tenancy the tenant’s share of the water rates were $86.11 1 , $55.75 2 and $86.11. The water rates started to increase considerably from April 2025 where the tenant’s share was $323.22. 1 10 January 2025
From May 2025 until March 2026 the tenant’s share of the water rates ranged from $705.78 per month to a high of $1,558.99. That is almost 29 times higher than the smallest monthly invoice.
The Watercare invoices are addressed to Santu Nath and Rashi Nath at the tenancy address. It is presumed that these two people are the owners of the premises but there is no confirmation of this. While the invoices may be sent to the tenancy address, they are not addressed to the tenant and therefore there is no evidence that the tenant has received the invoices by mail.
The property manager advised at the hearing that he only obtained access to the Watercare portal and therefore the water invoices in December 2025. It was then that he sent all the invoices to the tenant by email.
The tenants have the obligation to pay for their water usage. However, there is a corresponding implied obligation on a landlord to advise the tenant of the costs clearly and within a reasonable time frame. A tenant must be provided with the actual provider invoices and be able to clearly identify what is their usage. By providing the tenant with invoices up to almost a year later, there is no opportunity for the tenant to check the amount of water used.
On 14 May 2025 a letter addressed to Santu Nath and Rashi Nath accompanied the Watercare invoice. The letter advised that the bill was greater than $100.00 (the tenant’s share of water usage was $946.21). The letter recommended carrying out a water leak test and gave detailed instructions for doing so.
The landlord did not carry out a water leak test. The invoices for water usage increased. In September 2025 a plumber attended at the premises to check a leak occurring in the bedroom. At the hearing the landlord produced an invoice dated 23 October 2025 and it records that there was a split in the hose behind the toilet which the plumber replaced.
While this repair was carried out there was still no water leak test at the premises and the water usage remained high.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the tenants are responsible for water charges solely attributable to the tenant’s use. If there is a leak, water usage may not be solely attributable to the tenant’s use, especially if the tenant was not aware of the leak and it was not caused by their actions.
Once the landlord is notified (or ought reasonably to have been aware) of a possible leak, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair it promptly. The tenant should not be liable for excessive water charges resulting from leaks that are not their fault, and that the landlord failed to address in a timely manner. 2 11 February 2025
At the hearing the property manager suggested that the toilet hose was damaged by the tenant’s dog but there was no evidence produced to support this.
The landlord can claim for water rates up to the point where it was reasonable for them to become aware of the leak. Given the correspondence from Watercare in May 2025 it is determined that the landlord should have investigated whether there was a leak. While there was a leak that was repaired in September 2025 that leak may have been present for some time and would have been discovered if a leak test was carried out.
For these reasons I consider that the tenant is liable for the water rates for the months of January to April 2025 which amounts to $551.19. The property manager advised that the tenant has paid $50.00 towards the water rates so the outstanding amount owed by the tenant is $501.19.
The landlord’s claim for the remaining water rates is dismissed.
As the landlord was not substantially successful with their claim I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I decline to suppress the landlords name as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5418752 — net $501.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$501.19	Water rates
Net award	$501.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$501.19

Order

Kristan Alexandra Roberts must pay Rv Inz Limited As Agent For Rashi Parmar $501.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing held on 1 April 2026 by video. The tenant did not attend the hearing. An attempt was made to join the tenant to the hearing by telephone, but the call went unanswered.
The landlord has applied for water rates amounting to $12,450.80.
For the first three months of the tenancy the tenant’s share of the water rates were $86.11 1 , $55.75 2 and $86.11. The water rates started to increase considerably from April 2025 where the tenant’s share was $323.22. 1 10 January 2025
From May 2025 until March 2026 the tenant’s share of the water rates ranged from $705.78 per month to a high of $1,558.99. That is almost 29 times higher than the smallest monthly invoice.
The Watercare invoices are addressed to Santu Nath and Rashi Nath at the tenancy address. It is presumed that these two people are the owners of the premises but there is no confirmation of this. While the invoices may be sent to the tenancy address, they are not addressed to the tenant and therefore there is no evidence that the tenant has received the invoices by mail.
The property manager advised at the hearing that he only obtained access to the Watercare portal and therefore the water invoices in December 2025. It was then that he sent all the invoices to the tenant by email.
The tenants have the obligation to pay for their water usage. However, there is a corresponding implied obligation on a landlord to advise the tenant of the costs clearly and within a reasonable time frame. A tenant must be provided with the actual provider invoices and be able to clearly identify what is their usage. By providing the tenant with invoices up to almost a year later, there is no opportunity for the tenant to check the amount of water used.
On 14 May 2025 a letter addressed to Santu Nath and Rashi Nath accompanied the Watercare invoice. The letter advised that the bill was greater than $100.00 (the tenant’s share of water usage was $946.21). The letter recommended carrying out a water leak test and gave detailed instructions for doing so.
The landlord did not carry out a water leak test. The invoices for water usage increased. In September 2025 a plumber attended at the premises to check a leak occurring in the bedroom. At the hearing the landlord produced an invoice dated 23 October 2025 and it records that there was a split in the hose behind the toilet which the plumber replaced.
While this repair was carried out there was still no water leak test at the premises and the water usage remained high.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the tenants are responsible for water charges solely attributable to the tenant’s use. If there is a leak, water usage may not be solely attributable to the tenant’s use, especially if the tenant was not aware of the leak and it was not caused by their actions.
Once the landlord is notified (or ought reasonably to have been aware) of a possible leak, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair it promptly. The tenant should not be liable for excessive water charges resulting from leaks that are not their fault, and that the landlord failed to address in a timely manner. 2 11 February 2025
At the hearing the property manager suggested that the toilet hose was damaged by the tenant’s dog but there was no evidence produced to support this.
The landlord can claim for water rates up to the point where it was reasonable for them to become aware of the leak. Given the correspondence from Watercare in May 2025 it is determined that the landlord should have investigated whether there was a leak. While there was a leak that was repaired in September 2025 that leak may have been present for some time and would have been discovered if a leak test was carried out.
For these reasons I consider that the tenant is liable for the water rates for the months of January to April 2025 which amounts to $551.19. The property manager advised that the tenant has paid $50.00 towards the water rates so the outstanding amount owed by the tenant is $501.19.
The landlord’s claim for the remaining water rates is dismissed.
As the landlord was not substantially successful with their claim I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I decline to suppress the landlords name as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418752 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 65 Princes Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418752 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 65 Princes Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions