What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4677155 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4677155?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677155?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677155?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9688686-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4677155 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4677155?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677155?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677155?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9688686-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4677155 — Leaks

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord/s representative] appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 20 November 2018 and is current. On 06 September 2023, the tenant filed a claim that the landlord had failed to maintain the plumbing, namely the gas hot water cylinder, in a reasonable state of repair.
The onus of proving this claim rests with the tenant. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish more likely than not that the landlord has failed, by act or omission, to meet their obligations under the terms of agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).
On 16 March 2023, the tenant advised the landlord that they had an issue with the hot water supply. The hot water is run on gas. A plumber attended and completed remedial work, removing the old cylinder, and replacing it with another. The tenant states that the work was completed by the plumber’s apprentice, who had been left unsupervised. Upon completion, however, there was no evidence that the work had not been completed satisfactorily.
The tenant noted an increase in the gas usage for the month March to April and then again April to May. In May they also noted what they describe as bubbling and lifting of the vinyl flooring nearby the cylinder. The tenant mistakenly thought this was water leaking from the fridge / freezer. The tenant has produced photographs of areas of floor showing what appear to be water marks.
In May to June and June to July the tenant again noted a significant increase in gas usage.
Having received advice on the June to July usage, the tenant called the provider who suggested that they advise the landlord. On 21 July 2023, the tenant looked in the hot water cupboard and detected a leak at the top and base of the cylinder. The tenant has produced photographs of the inside of the hot water cupboard showing some pooling at the top and water around the pipes at the base of the cylinder. The tenant advised the landlord.
On 25 July 2023, the same plumber who installed the cylinder attended and repaired the leak. The tenant states that the plumber told them that it was not their fault. The tenant feels that the installation of the cylinder had not been conducted properly and had resulted in the leak causing the increase usage. The tenant also raised whether the new cylinder had put pressure on the existing plumbing, causing it to fail.
The tenant sought compensation from the landlord of $1,453.10 for excess gas usage. The matter has remained unresolved and on 06 September 2023 the tenant filed their claim. The tenant has a young family and state that the loss has been financially crippling, and they have had to use their Christmas savings.
Section 45(1)(b) of the Act states that the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the property and the period during which the property is likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
The landlord’s obligation under section 45(1)(b) of the Act is to investigate and repair any defect brought to their attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what that timeframe is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right whatever the problem might be.
[The landlord/s representative] states that as soon as the matter was brought to the landlord’s attention, they arranged for the plumber to attend. The parties state that inspections of the property usually occur six monthly. There was no inspection carried out, or due, between March and July. The tenant states that once repaired their gas usage returned to normal levels.
[The plumber] gave evidence. He confirmed that he had attended the property in March 2023 and had installed a new hot water cylinder. He denied that the apprentice had been left alone to complete the job and stated that they work as a team. He stated that he was called back to the property by the landlord on 25 July 2023, and upon investigation, had discovered that a pipe underneath the house had developed a significant leak. This leak would not have been obvious to the tenant. He stated that the leak was unrelated to the installation of the new cylinder in March. Referring to the photographs produced by the tenant [The plumber] stated that the pooling of the water at the top of the cylinder was the result of a very small leak under pressure, which would not have contributed to any increase in gas usage, but that the leak under the house would have. He stated that the water at the base had dribbled down the cylinder from the top and was not another leak. [The landlord/s representative] stated that the property was over 100 years old. [The plumber] stated that the installation of a new cylinder would not have resulted in any increased water pressure putting more stress on the existing pipes, adding that the pipe concerned had simply failed and that plumbing, new or old, can fail for any number of reasons. Decision
The matter was not brought to the landlord’s attention until 21 July 2023, after which I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to respond appropriately. Soon after the matter was raised, they sent the plumber to investigate. Although there was not one due, had there been, the leak was not a defect that would have been clearly obvious to anyone conducting a routine property inspection. Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that an act or omission on the part of the plumber, who was at the material time of installing the new cylinder acting as the landlord’s agent, has resulted in the leak. A reasonable tenant in the circumstances would have raised the issue with the landlord, at least when they received the second gas account signalling a significant increase in usage, inviting investigation. Had they done so, and had the landlord not responded, the outcome would have been different. Any award of compensation or damages must follow a breach of the agreement or the provisions of the Act. In this case, although I have sympathy for the tenant’s position, based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord is in breach of their obligations, and the claim is dismissed. Costs
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
In the case of Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135 at [2]-[3],[13], and [18], the Supreme Court stated the principle of open justice was fundamental to the common law system of civil and criminal justice. The Court stated that it was well established that there were circumstances in which the interests of justice required departure from the general principle, but only to the extent required to serve the administration of justice. The Court referred to the administration of justice standard as capable of accommodating the particular circumstances of individual cases with consideration given to the broader public interest. The Court went onto endorse the principle in ASB Bank Ltd v AB [2010] 3 NZLR 427 (HC), stating, that there must be specific adverse consequences sufficient to justify an exception to the rule, adding that the threshold was a high one.
While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, in the circumstances, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the tenant. After considering the matter I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in section 95A (4). The Tribunal also orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677155 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677155 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions