Time to clean up this watery mess
There’s clarification at last for Auckland property investors grappling with Watercare’s new $190 annual fixed charge for water.
Tuesday, September 25th 2012, 12:00AM 
3 Comments
by The Landlord
But it’s definitely not the answer most landlords were hoping for.
Water has been a contentious issue for a long time but returned to the headlines when, under the new Auckland Super City, Watercare introduced the uniform charge right across Auckland.
Some areas had previously not had any fixed water charges and in others it had been part of the rates bill.
But now Auckland every landlord is lumbered with it and, unlike metered water charges, the Tenancy Tribunal has decided it cannot be passed on to the tenants.
That’s despite arguments that it is broken down on a per-day basis by Watercare's bills, so it is easy to see how much relates to the tenancy in question.
And it’s despite arguments that while the RTA states that landlords are responsible for all charges that would be incurred whether a property is tenanted or not, water can be disconnected and thus does not fit this desciption.
Who would think water could be so confusing? This issue seems to have arisen because water was often part of the rates bill – as it still is in many parts of New Zealand. But now that it’s not in Auckland, surely we need to look at our approach.
This new ruling does not make sense – water is a commodity, such as power or telephone, that is the responsibility of the tenant.
Landlords don’t pay a tenant’s fixed phone line connection, why should they pay the fixed water fee?
And the fact the water account cannot be in a tenant’s name is farcical. Anyone with more than one or two properties – and property managers in particular - has an administrative nightmare every month, working out which tenant should be forwarded which part of the bill.
We might have an answer for now in relation to the $190 annual fee but I can’t help feeling that we won’t see the end of this debate until the messy system is tidied up once and for all.
I know the local property investors association won’t let the matter rest.
| « Housing bubble warning | National customers aren't colour blind » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
This explains why LL's are told to absorb the charge as x number of tenants would kick up a fuss about it.
X number of LL's complaining are far easier for the Govt. to deal with.
Anyone else got a better explanation?
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
This is an example of a monopoly provider providing an essential service at an exorbitant rate and refusing to add value (or even help recover it) by providing service. Instead they invoke a mythical survey to justify monthly billing on the basis that is the service people want.