What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4837967 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 4837967?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4837967?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10559775-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4837967 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 4837967?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4837967?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10559775-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4837967 — Leaks

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names of the tenant and the landlords and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 [Bond number suppressed] immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $589.01 [The tenant/s]: $1,490.99

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord is applying for the tenant to pay the sum of $1,179.81 from the bond. It claims this relates to damage caused to the property by the tenant.
The property occupied by the tenant was separate to the laundry. The laundry is attached to a separate studio premises, rented by another tenant. It is therefore separate from the tenant’s premises.
What happened was that there was a leak from the tenant’s washing machine, discovered in late 2023, when the tenant in the studio unit complained that her carpets were sodden. The landlord visited the studio premises and walked on the carpet. The carpet smelt very bad and was squishing, so the landlord concluded the carpets were sodden.
The landlord called a plumber. The plumber said the leak was there because of the way the washing machine had been plumbed into the laundry. The plumber sent an invoice for his work which recorded: 24/10/23 Attend site inspect unit ,check under kitchen ,check bathroom fixtures all ok. Check laundry behind tenants kitchen to find the washing machine outlet/ hose discharging directly onto the floor leaking water continuously. Reconnect / fit into side of tub and tape to washing machine hose . Took photos of flooded carpet in tenants unit requires carpet cleaners and driers . Tenant was worried about getting electrocuted [redacted]
The landlord then had to incur the cost of drying out the carpets for the studio tenant, at cost of $1037.50.
The landlord said it was hard to say how long the leaking had been going on. The landlord however said it acted to repair the damage as soon as the studio tenant complained about it. The landlord submits that the sheer extent of the water meant that the leak must have been going on for a while and the tenant must surely have noticed the laundry floor with water on it.
[The tenant/s] says this was a one off. She says the pipe where the waste goes in must have come out. She says she did not recall ever seeing water on the laundry floor and that she did not get notified of the leak until she got the invoice to pay for the damage when she was close to moving out.
She says she does one load of laundry a day and then goes to work. The laundry is separate from her house so water on the floor would not be visible to her unless she was going to the laundry.

Did the tenant cause the damage?

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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove their claim on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). They must prove that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
The burden of proof in this case is on the landlord.
I am satisfied that there was a leak in the laundry, caused by the tenant’s faulty plumbing of her washing machine.
The issue is whether the landlord has adequately discharged its obligation under s 49 of the RTA to mitigate its loss.
Section 49 says: Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
I find that the washing machine had been leaking for some time before the damage was reported by the studio tenant to the landlord. I make this finding because of the evidence of the landlord, which I accept, as to the extent of the water in the studio tenant’s premises. This clearly suggest that the water had been there for some time, in particular, due to the fact the carpets were smelling very bad. The amount of water that was there suggests that there had been more than one cycle of the washing machine and probably more.
I find that the studio tenant must not have reported the extent of the flooding as soon as it has happened. This failing is not, however, the responsibility of the tenant in this case.
Likewise, although the tenant could not recall seeing water on the floor of the laundry I find that there must have been some water there, albeit noticed at the end of the day after her work. She should have noticed that water and reported it to the landlord.
Although I find that the tenant has caused the leak, I find that the landlord has, through the actions of the studio tenant in not sooner reporting the flooding, contributed to the extent of the damage. The landlord has therefore failed to mitigate.
I therefore find that both parties are liable for 50% of the invoices that were incurred and I make the orders above.
As neither party has fully succeeded I do not refund the filing fee. I do however order name suppression in favour of both parties.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names of the tenant and the landlords and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 [Bond number suppressed] immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $589.01 [The tenant/s]: $1,490.99

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord is applying for the tenant to pay the sum of $1,179.81 from the bond. It claims this relates to damage caused to the property by the tenant.
The property occupied by the tenant was separate to the laundry. The laundry is attached to a separate studio premises, rented by another tenant. It is therefore separate from the tenant’s premises.
What happened was that there was a leak from the tenant’s washing machine, discovered in late 2023, when the tenant in the studio unit complained that her carpets were sodden. The landlord visited the studio premises and walked on the carpet. The carpet smelt very bad and was squishing, so the landlord concluded the carpets were sodden.
The landlord called a plumber. The plumber said the leak was there because of the way the washing machine had been plumbed into the laundry. The plumber sent an invoice for his work which recorded: 24/10/23 Attend site inspect unit ,check under kitchen ,check bathroom fixtures all ok. Check laundry behind tenants kitchen to find the washing machine outlet/ hose discharging directly onto the floor leaking water continuously. Reconnect / fit into side of tub and tape to washing machine hose . Took photos of flooded carpet in tenants unit requires carpet cleaners and driers . Tenant was worried about getting electrocuted [redacted]
The landlord then had to incur the cost of drying out the carpets for the studio tenant, at cost of $1037.50.
The landlord said it was hard to say how long the leaking had been going on. The landlord however said it acted to repair the damage as soon as the studio tenant complained about it. The landlord submits that the sheer extent of the water meant that the leak must have been going on for a while and the tenant must surely have noticed the laundry floor with water on it.
[The tenant/s] says this was a one off. She says the pipe where the waste goes in must have come out. She says she did not recall ever seeing water on the laundry floor and that she did not get notified of the leak until she got the invoice to pay for the damage when she was close to moving out.
She says she does one load of laundry a day and then goes to work. The laundry is separate from her house so water on the floor would not be visible to her unless she was going to the laundry.

Did the tenant cause the damage?

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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove their claim on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). They must prove that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
The burden of proof in this case is on the landlord.
I am satisfied that there was a leak in the laundry, caused by the tenant’s faulty plumbing of her washing machine.
The issue is whether the landlord has adequately discharged its obligation under s 49 of the RTA to mitigate its loss.
Section 49 says: Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
I find that the washing machine had been leaking for some time before the damage was reported by the studio tenant to the landlord. I make this finding because of the evidence of the landlord, which I accept, as to the extent of the water in the studio tenant’s premises. This clearly suggest that the water had been there for some time, in particular, due to the fact the carpets were smelling very bad. The amount of water that was there suggests that there had been more than one cycle of the washing machine and probably more.
I find that the studio tenant must not have reported the extent of the flooding as soon as it has happened. This failing is not, however, the responsibility of the tenant in this case.
Likewise, although the tenant could not recall seeing water on the floor of the laundry I find that there must have been some water there, albeit noticed at the end of the day after her work. She should have noticed that water and reported it to the landlord.
Although I find that the tenant has caused the leak, I find that the landlord has, through the actions of the studio tenant in not sooner reporting the flooding, contributed to the extent of the damage. The landlord has therefore failed to mitigate.
I therefore find that both parties are liable for 50% of the invoices that were incurred and I make the orders above.
As neither party has fully succeeded I do not refund the filing fee. I do however order name suppression in favour of both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4837967 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4837967 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant cause the damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant cause the damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions