What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4764518 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $570.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4764518?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4764518?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4764518?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10281942-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4764518 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $570.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4764518?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4764518?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4764518?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10281942-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4764518 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4764518 — net $570.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for replacement of the septic pumpxces	$550.00	Insurance excess for replacement of the septic pumpxces
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$570.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$570.44

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $570.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

This claim was previously heard and determined by the Tribunal. An application for rehearing was made and the rehearing granted. Accordingly, I held a hearing on 6 March 2024 to determine the claim afresh.
[The property manager], from [The property management company] attended for the landlord and the tenant also attended.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the replacement of a burnt-out septic pump on the basis that the damage arose from item/s flushed down the toilet. The landlord’s insurer has covered the cost of the replacement less the landlord’s excess of $550.00.
The tenancy commenced on 1 August 2023. The tenant and his two flatmates live in the premises. The tenancy premises are at a level lower than the road which means that sewage waste needs to be pumped up to road level.
Around three months after the tenancy commenced the tenant contacted the property manager and advised there was electrical shorting particularly of the kitchen circuits. The landlord’s son, who is a registered electrician, traced the problem to an issue with the septic pump. [Plumber 1] was engaged to rectify the burnt-out septic pump.
As noted above the landlord’s insurer accepted a claim for the plumbing and electrical costs incurred in replacing the pump. The landlord sought the excess from the tenant, however the tenant disputes liability for these costs.

Is the tenant responsible for the insurance excess incurred by the landlord?

The tenant disputes that anyone living or visiting the premises has flushed a wipe or similar item down the toilet. He says as a builder he is very aware of the need not to do that in properties with septic pumps and made his flatmates equally as aware. He presented statements from both flatmates which confirm that the tenant made them aware when they moved in that they could not flush feminine hygiene products, wet-wipes, or other wipes down the toilet. Both flatmates acknowledged they had a sanitary disposal bin in the bathroom they share and that they used that as intended.
The tenant questions whether the previous tenants could have put wipes down the toilet and whether the wipes may have stayed in the chamber and only become entangled in the pump during his tenancy.
The tenant also raised that in his view the pump burnt out not because of the presence of wipes, as the photograph from [Plumbing company 1] 1 showed little fibrous material in the pump, but because of the way the pump had been set up from the start. He says had the pump should have been set up with an adequate alarm system installed so there was warning of an issue before the pump burns out. Had that occurred then [Plumbing company 1] probably would have been able to correct the problem by cleaning out the chamber before the wipe got into the pump.
The tenant provided a statement from [redacted], [The drainage company], who stated “when these wastewater systems are installed it is absolutely imperative that they be installed with a highlevel alarm to warn you of a fault such as the one you have experienced. This alarm gives you time to isolate the pump by turning it off and calling a technician before any damage is done to the pump.” 1 Who replaced the pump
The landlord maintains that the tenant or someone living or visiting at the premises has flushed fibrous material such as a wipe down the toilet which has caused the pump to fail. The landlord says the tenant was made aware of the need not to flush items such as wipes down the toilet because of the pump at the start of the tenancy. The tenancy agreement records:
[Plumbing company 1] confirmed there was evidence of wipes having gone through the septic pump causing the pump to fail. [Plumber 1], Manager of [The plumbing company] commented “It is impossible to definitively identify when the wipes entered the system, but it is most likely to have happened recently”.
As the tenant disputed liability the property manager contacted another plumber, [Plumber 2] of [Plumbing company 2], for his independent comments on how long it would take for wipes to damage a septic pump, whether it would happen over three months or more or whether it was instantaneous, and whether wipes could sit in a chamber for months and then cause an issue later. [Plumber 2] replied “Pretty much within a few days mate. The pump pumps the chamber right down, swirling the chamber up sucking up any solids. They definitely wouldn’t sit there for months without getting sucked into the pump.”
In considering this matter the landlord needs to prove that the damage to the pump occurred during the tenancy and that the damage 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 without their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Where 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. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
In this case having carefully considered all of the evidence I find that the pump failed as a wipe or similar fibrous material was flushed down the toilet during the tenant’s tenancy. In making this finding I am persuaded by [Plumber 1] and [Plumber 2]’s evidence that a wipe would not stay in the chamber for around three months before causing the pump to fail. I note that the tenant raised that the material on the pump impellers may be fat rather than a wipe but I find [Plumber 1]’s evidence convincing that it was a wipe or something similar.
While the tenant’s and his flatmates’ evidence is credible and convincing that they did not flush a wipe of similar down the toilet, that does not mean someone at the premises did not do so.
I have considered the tenant’s evidence that the pump should have an alarm system installed. However, there is no evidence that the pump system in place was not installed correctly, or has failed because of incorrect installation. There is also no evidence that any requirements under the Building Code of NZ Standards have been breached. Without such evidence the pump is considered to be correctly installed. Accordingly, the tenant’s defence of the claim on that basis fails.
I consider that the septic pump burnt out likely resulted from a careless action of the tenant, his flatmates or someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent, and therefore the tenant must be liable for the insurance excess claimed.
Filing fee: As the landlord has been successful in its claim, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.
Suppression Order: The landlord seeks suppression of its name, and as the landlord has been successful in its claim suppression is granted. This decision contains personal and sensitive information. Accordingly, I also suppress the tenant’s name and identifying details. (see section 95A(4), RTA).

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4764518 — net $570.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for replacement of the septic pumpxces	$550.00	Insurance excess for replacement of the septic pumpxces
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$570.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$570.44

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $570.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

This claim was previously heard and determined by the Tribunal. An application for rehearing was made and the rehearing granted. Accordingly, I held a hearing on 6 March 2024 to determine the claim afresh.
[The property manager], from [The property management company] attended for the landlord and the tenant also attended.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the replacement of a burnt-out septic pump on the basis that the damage arose from item/s flushed down the toilet. The landlord’s insurer has covered the cost of the replacement less the landlord’s excess of $550.00.
The tenancy commenced on 1 August 2023. The tenant and his two flatmates live in the premises. The tenancy premises are at a level lower than the road which means that sewage waste needs to be pumped up to road level.
Around three months after the tenancy commenced the tenant contacted the property manager and advised there was electrical shorting particularly of the kitchen circuits. The landlord’s son, who is a registered electrician, traced the problem to an issue with the septic pump. [Plumber 1] was engaged to rectify the burnt-out septic pump.
As noted above the landlord’s insurer accepted a claim for the plumbing and electrical costs incurred in replacing the pump. The landlord sought the excess from the tenant, however the tenant disputes liability for these costs.

Is the tenant responsible for the insurance excess incurred by the landlord?

The tenant disputes that anyone living or visiting the premises has flushed a wipe or similar item down the toilet. He says as a builder he is very aware of the need not to do that in properties with septic pumps and made his flatmates equally as aware. He presented statements from both flatmates which confirm that the tenant made them aware when they moved in that they could not flush feminine hygiene products, wet-wipes, or other wipes down the toilet. Both flatmates acknowledged they had a sanitary disposal bin in the bathroom they share and that they used that as intended.
The tenant questions whether the previous tenants could have put wipes down the toilet and whether the wipes may have stayed in the chamber and only become entangled in the pump during his tenancy.
The tenant also raised that in his view the pump burnt out not because of the presence of wipes, as the photograph from [Plumbing company 1] 1 showed little fibrous material in the pump, but because of the way the pump had been set up from the start. He says had the pump should have been set up with an adequate alarm system installed so there was warning of an issue before the pump burns out. Had that occurred then [Plumbing company 1] probably would have been able to correct the problem by cleaning out the chamber before the wipe got into the pump.
The tenant provided a statement from [redacted], [The drainage company], who stated “when these wastewater systems are installed it is absolutely imperative that they be installed with a highlevel alarm to warn you of a fault such as the one you have experienced. This alarm gives you time to isolate the pump by turning it off and calling a technician before any damage is done to the pump.” 1 Who replaced the pump
The landlord maintains that the tenant or someone living or visiting at the premises has flushed fibrous material such as a wipe down the toilet which has caused the pump to fail. The landlord says the tenant was made aware of the need not to flush items such as wipes down the toilet because of the pump at the start of the tenancy. The tenancy agreement records:
[Plumbing company 1] confirmed there was evidence of wipes having gone through the septic pump causing the pump to fail. [Plumber 1], Manager of [The plumbing company] commented “It is impossible to definitively identify when the wipes entered the system, but it is most likely to have happened recently”.
As the tenant disputed liability the property manager contacted another plumber, [Plumber 2] of [Plumbing company 2], for his independent comments on how long it would take for wipes to damage a septic pump, whether it would happen over three months or more or whether it was instantaneous, and whether wipes could sit in a chamber for months and then cause an issue later. [Plumber 2] replied “Pretty much within a few days mate. The pump pumps the chamber right down, swirling the chamber up sucking up any solids. They definitely wouldn’t sit there for months without getting sucked into the pump.”
In considering this matter the landlord needs to prove that the damage to the pump occurred during the tenancy and that the damage 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 without their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Where 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. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
In this case having carefully considered all of the evidence I find that the pump failed as a wipe or similar fibrous material was flushed down the toilet during the tenant’s tenancy. In making this finding I am persuaded by [Plumber 1] and [Plumber 2]’s evidence that a wipe would not stay in the chamber for around three months before causing the pump to fail. I note that the tenant raised that the material on the pump impellers may be fat rather than a wipe but I find [Plumber 1]’s evidence convincing that it was a wipe or something similar.
While the tenant’s and his flatmates’ evidence is credible and convincing that they did not flush a wipe of similar down the toilet, that does not mean someone at the premises did not do so.
I have considered the tenant’s evidence that the pump should have an alarm system installed. However, there is no evidence that the pump system in place was not installed correctly, or has failed because of incorrect installation. There is also no evidence that any requirements under the Building Code of NZ Standards have been breached. Without such evidence the pump is considered to be correctly installed. Accordingly, the tenant’s defence of the claim on that basis fails.
I consider that the septic pump burnt out likely resulted from a careless action of the tenant, his flatmates or someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent, and therefore the tenant must be liable for the insurance excess claimed.
Filing fee: As the landlord has been successful in its claim, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.
Suppression Order: The landlord seeks suppression of its name, and as the landlord has been successful in its claim suppression is granted. This decision contains personal and sensitive information. Accordingly, I also suppress the tenant’s name and identifying details. (see section 95A(4), RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4764518 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4764518 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the insurance excess incurred by the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the insurance excess incurred by the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions