What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4882040 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $333.82 (3586139-014) to [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4882040?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4882040?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4882040?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10736485-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4882040 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $333.82 (3586139-014) to [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4882040?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4882040?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4882040?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10736485-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7I, 18 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4882040 — Leaks

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were assisted by a Korean interpreter.

The tenancy began on 22 April 2023 and ended on 7 May 2024.

The landlord applied for compensation for the cost of a plumber attending during the tenancy.

The parties had earlier attended mediation where it was agreed that the bond would be refunded to the tenant except for the amount in dispute being $333.82. This amount is made up from a plumber’s invoice of $313.38 and the application fee of $20.44.

The tenancy is an apartment. The landlord employed a plumber after water leaked from the premises to the downstairs apartment.

The invoice from the plumber which was produced, states that he found no leaks and there was water all around the shower/bath area, water all over the cistern and pan and water on the floor. He said that it pointed to him as a rigorous shower and is excessive splash over.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for the tenant to pay for the plumber’s invoice on the basis that the tenant’s actions required the plumber to attend rather than in relation to a leak.

There had been an earlier leak at the premises, but the landlord says that the issue then was unrelated to the issue before the Tribunal.

The bathroom at the premises is original. There has at some stage been water ingress through to the room next door which is evidenced by the damaged skirting board. I also notice from one of the photographs that paint has peeled just above the skirting board at the end of the bath. The shower is located above the bath and there is a glass shower screen that goes less than halfway down the length of the bath.

It is not clear how the water travelled from the bathroom to the downstairs apartment. It is suggested that this may have been caused by either the tenant cleaning the bathroom or splashing water when having a shower.

The tenant acknowledged that she had given the floor of the bathroom a good clean on two occasions during the tenancy. She said that they were not told of any issues with the bathroom and that if they were aware they would have taken extra care.

It is not clear that the tenant had done anything other than use the bathroom for what it was intended including using the shower and cleaning the bathroom. If the shower does not contain the water from showering in the bath, then that is a design fault. If the tenant is not able to clean the bathroom floor without risk of the water leaking into the downstairs apartment, then that is a problem with the bathroom and the tile floor.

Water is a feature of bathrooms. In the normal use of the bathroom there is water.

As this is the landlord’s application, the landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did anything other than use the bathroom for the purpose that it was intended. Therefore, the tenant should not be liable for the cost of the plumber’s invoice.

The landlord’s application is dismissed. The bond that was in dispute is released to the tenant.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $333.82 (3586139-014) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were assisted by a Korean interpreter.
The tenancy began on 22 April 2023 and ended on 7 May 2024.
The landlord applied for compensation for the cost of a plumber attending during the tenancy.
The parties had earlier attended mediation where it was agreed that the bond would be refunded to the tenant except for the amount in dispute being $333.82. This amount is made up from a plumber’s invoice of $313.38 and the application fee of $20.44.
The tenancy is an apartment. The landlord employed a plumber after water leaked from the premises to the downstairs apartment.
The invoice from the plumber which was produced, states that he found no leaks and there was water all around the shower/bath area, water all over the cistern and pan and water on the floor. He said that it pointed to him as a rigorous shower and is excessive splash over.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for the tenant to pay for the plumber’s invoice on the basis that the tenant’s actions required the plumber to attend rather than in relation to a leak.
There had been an earlier leak at the premises, but the landlord says that the issue then was unrelated to the issue before the Tribunal.
The bathroom at the premises is original. There has at some stage been water ingress through to the room next door which is evidenced by the damaged skirting board. I also notice from one of the photographs that paint has peeled just above the skirting board at the end of the bath. The shower is located above the bath and there is a glass shower screen that goes less than halfway down the length of the bath.
It is not clear how the water travelled from the bathroom to the downstairs apartment. It is suggested that this may have been caused by either the tenant cleaning the bathroom or splashing water when having a shower.
The tenant acknowledged that she had given the floor of the bathroom a good clean on two occasions during the tenancy. She said that they were not told of any issues with the bathroom and that if they were aware they would have taken extra care.
It is not clear that the tenant had done anything other than use the bathroom for what it was intended including using the shower and cleaning the bathroom. If the shower does not contain the water from showering in the bath, then that is a design fault. If the tenant is not able to clean the bathroom floor without risk of the water leaking into the downstairs apartment, then that is a problem with the bathroom and the tile floor.
Water is a feature of bathrooms. In the normal use of the bathroom there is water.
As this is the landlord’s application, the landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did anything other than use the bathroom for the purpose that it was intended. Therefore, the tenant should not be liable for the cost of the plumber’s invoice.
The landlord’s application is dismissed. The bond that was in dispute is released to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4882040 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 7I, 18 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4882040 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 7I, 18 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions