What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4614990 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4614990?

Replace Sewerage Pump: $1,847.47 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614990?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9282129-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4614990 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4614990?

Replace Sewerage Pump: $1,847.47 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614990?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9282129-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

26 Oakdale Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4614990 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4614990 — net $1,847.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Replace Sewerage Pump	$1,847.47	Repairs: Replace Sewerage Pump
Net award	$1,847.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,847.47

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

The following damage has been caused during the tenancy: a. Destruction of a submersible sewage pump caused by cloth items entering the sewage system and becoming wrapped around the pump.

The landlord submitted that the cloth items must have been discarded into the toilet in order to reach the submersible pump.

Mr Ashton submitted that the cloth items were unfamiliar to him and if they had been discarded into the toilet, the flush was so weak the cloth items would not have made it past the S-trap. Mr Ashton submitted that the cloth items may have entered the system from an outside trap during flooding earlier in 2023.

The tenancy is not a new one. Mr Ashton submitted that he has lived at the property since April 2018 and he became head tenant in October 2021. An updated copy of a tenancy agreement on the Tribunal file has him signed as head tenant and dated 01.03.2022.

I do not accept that the cloth items have been discarded intentionally into the toilet. However, I do find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and it has occurred carelessly while Mr Ashton has been head tenant of the property. Mr Ashton has not disproved liability for the damage.

According to the Depreciation Schedule on the Inland Revenue Department website, sewerage pumps and submersible pumps each have a life span of ten years.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.

I did not hear evidence on when the pump was installed from either party. As Mr Ashton has been a tenant there since 2018, that is the date that I have calculated the depreciation from.

The residual value of the pump according to these calculations is $756.72.

Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4614990 — net $1,847.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Replace Sewerage Pump	$1,847.47	Repairs: Replace Sewerage Pump
Net award	$1,847.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,847.47

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Christopher James Ashton must pay [The landlord/s] $1,847.47 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
The following damage has been caused during the tenancy: a. Destruction of a submersible sewage pump caused by cloth items entering the sewage system and becoming wrapped around the pump.
The landlord submitted that the cloth items must have been discarded into the toilet in order to reach the submersible pump.
Mr Ashton submitted that the cloth items were unfamiliar to him and if they had been discarded into the toilet, the flush was so weak the cloth items would not have made it past the S-trap. Mr Ashton submitted that the cloth items may have entered the system from an outside trap during flooding earlier in 2023.
The tenancy is not a new one. Mr Ashton submitted that he has lived at the property since April 2018 and he became head tenant in October 2021. An updated copy of a tenancy agreement on the Tribunal file has him signed as head tenant and dated 01.03.2022.
I do not accept that the cloth items have been discarded intentionally into the toilet. However, I do find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and it has occurred carelessly while Mr Ashton has been head tenant of the property. Mr Ashton has not disproved liability for the damage.
According to the Depreciation Schedule on the Inland Revenue Department website, sewerage pumps and submersible pumps each have a life span of ten years.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
I did not hear evidence on when the pump was installed from either party. As Mr Ashton has been a tenant there since 2018, that is the date that I have calculated the depreciation from.
The residual value of the pump according to these calculations is $756.72.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4614990 — Property damage at 26 Oakdale Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4614990 — Property damage at 26 Oakdale Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions