What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4918617?

The tribunal order states: Onsite Solutions Limited must pay Village Estate Agents Limited acting as

How much money was awarded in case 4918617?

Cleaning: $1,020.65 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4918617?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4918617?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10838848-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4918617?

The tribunal order states: Onsite Solutions Limited must pay Village Estate Agents Limited acting as

How much money was awarded in case 4918617?

Cleaning: $1,020.65 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4918617?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4918617?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10838848-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1031 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Riverhead, Riverhead Tenancy Tribunal Case 4918617 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4918617 — net $1,041.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for septic tank cleaning and repair	$1,020.65	Compensation for septic tank cleaning and repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,041.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,041.09

Order

Onsite Solutions Limited must pay Village Estate Agents Limited acting as agent For Danielle Wang $1,041.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Gonthier appeared on behalf of the landlord. Ms Duxfield and Mr Turner appeared on behalf of the tenant. The tenant is a construction company who provides accommodation for migrant workers.
This matter initially came before the Tribunal on 17 July 2024.
The landlord had filed a claim for overdue water invoices and for compensation for work done to clear out and repair a septic tank at the property but by the date of the hearing the water invoices had been paid.
The tenancy began on 24 July 2020 and was current at the time of the initial hearing. I was advised today that the tenancy ended on 21 August 2024.
In April 2024 issues arose with the septic tank which began overflowing.
At the initial hearing the landlord advised that they had incurred the following amounts in resolving the septic tank issue: a. Burnetts: $782.00 (paid by the tenants); b. Burnetts: $191.48 (tenants have paid $122.92, landlord seek the balance of $68.56); c. The Wet Sparky: $6,268.91; and d. The Drain Company: $1,178.75.
At the time of the initial hearing the landlord was still awaiting the outcome of an insurance claim made in relation to the septic tank. I therefore adjourned the hearing so that the landlord could confirm the insurance position and file additional evidence regarding the age, condition, past repairs and/or maintenance of the septic tank.
The landlord has now filed this additional evidence and the tenant has filed evidence in response.
At the hearing today the landlord explained that the landlord had incurred total costs of $8,141.53. The insurance had not covered the entire amount (cleaning the kitchen drain fat and a replacement part were not covered), so the after the insurance insurance contribution, less the amount already paid by the tenants, the amount sought is $1,192.65. This amount includes an additional invoice filed following the hearing in the amount of $172.50 for checking the septic tank when the tenancy ended.
Ms Gonthier confirmed that the landlord seeks the amount of $1,192.65 from the tenants.

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of cleaning out and repairing the septic tank?

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 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.
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.
The landlord said that they were alerted to the fact that the septic tank was overflowing in April 2024 and that they investigated and undertook repairs. The landlord says that there was a considerable amount of fat and wet wipes found in the septic tank and that the tenant is responsible for the cost of cleaning out the septic tank and the cost of repairs. The pump had to be replaced.
The tenancy began in 2020 and it was not until 2024 that problems arose with the septic tank. If the issues had arisen closer to the start of the tenancy then it could well be the case that the problems had been created by former tenants and only just come to light. However the issues in this case occurred after nearly four years. I consider that it is more likely than not that the damage was caused during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
As I have found that the damage was caused during tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
The tenant says that they routinely educate their employees on life in New Zealand and that their workers know about septic tanks and do not use wet wipes. They say that their employee authorised part payment of the landlord’s invoices without their knowledge and without them understanding the total likely costs. They say that their employees are not responsible for the issues that occurred with the septic tank.
The tenant provided a copy of the house rules given to their employees (which confirm grease cannot be put down the sink and only human waste and toilet paper can be flushed down the toilet) and email correspondence from a number of their employees confirming that they had not used wet wipes.
The landlord provided copies of all invoices, relevant photos showing the condition of the septic tank (grease and wet wipes). They also provided evidence from KPL who installed a new septic tank in 2017 (as confirmed by invoice). KPL confirmed that the tank does not require regular servicing and has an expected lifespan of at least 10 years.
I have taken into account the email evidence provided by the tenant’s employees but note that none of these employees had been living at the property for the entire duration of the tenancy. I have also taken into account the information given to employees but note that the information on these issues is only a small part of very comprehensive advice given on a whole range of issues.
Having carefully considered all of the evidence I consider that the damage was more likely than not caused by careless flushing of fat and wet wipes during the tenancy. The photos show grease and fat and the report from The Wet Sparky who attended the site records: “found the level transducer had failed due to fat build up. This caused the pump chamber to overflow and flood the pump motor. We also found a lot of wipes and fat build up on the other components”
Given the duration of this tenancy it is unlikely that the fat build up and wet wipes could be the responsibility of the previous tenants.
The insurance in this case is slightly more complicated than usual as the insurance has not covered all of the damage (as there are some exclusions). The tenant is therefore liable for the insurance excess, the uninsured portion of the claim, less amounts already paid. I have however deducted the amount of the invoice that was introduced by the landlord just prior to this hearing $172.50) as this was for a check of the septic tank following the hearing, and was not to clear out the septic tank or repair the damage, and this invoice was not included in the landlord’s application.
The amount of compensation ordered is therefore $1,020.65 (the amount sought of $1,192.65 less the invoice amount of $172.50).
Because Village Estate Agents Limited acting as agent for Danielle Wang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $20.44.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4918617 — net $1,041.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for septic tank cleaning and repair	$1,020.65	Compensation for septic tank cleaning and repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,041.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,041.09

Order

Onsite Solutions Limited must pay Village Estate Agents Limited acting as agent For Danielle Wang $1,041.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Gonthier appeared on behalf of the landlord. Ms Duxfield and Mr Turner appeared on behalf of the tenant. The tenant is a construction company who provides accommodation for migrant workers.
This matter initially came before the Tribunal on 17 July 2024.
The landlord had filed a claim for overdue water invoices and for compensation for work done to clear out and repair a septic tank at the property but by the date of the hearing the water invoices had been paid.
The tenancy began on 24 July 2020 and was current at the time of the initial hearing. I was advised today that the tenancy ended on 21 August 2024.
In April 2024 issues arose with the septic tank which began overflowing.
At the initial hearing the landlord advised that they had incurred the following amounts in resolving the septic tank issue: a. Burnetts: $782.00 (paid by the tenants); b. Burnetts: $191.48 (tenants have paid $122.92, landlord seek the balance of $68.56); c. The Wet Sparky: $6,268.91; and d. The Drain Company: $1,178.75.
At the time of the initial hearing the landlord was still awaiting the outcome of an insurance claim made in relation to the septic tank. I therefore adjourned the hearing so that the landlord could confirm the insurance position and file additional evidence regarding the age, condition, past repairs and/or maintenance of the septic tank.
The landlord has now filed this additional evidence and the tenant has filed evidence in response.
At the hearing today the landlord explained that the landlord had incurred total costs of $8,141.53. The insurance had not covered the entire amount (cleaning the kitchen drain fat and a replacement part were not covered), so the after the insurance insurance contribution, less the amount already paid by the tenants, the amount sought is $1,192.65. This amount includes an additional invoice filed following the hearing in the amount of $172.50 for checking the septic tank when the tenancy ended.
Ms Gonthier confirmed that the landlord seeks the amount of $1,192.65 from the tenants.

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of cleaning out and repairing the septic tank?

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 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.
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.
The landlord said that they were alerted to the fact that the septic tank was overflowing in April 2024 and that they investigated and undertook repairs. The landlord says that there was a considerable amount of fat and wet wipes found in the septic tank and that the tenant is responsible for the cost of cleaning out the septic tank and the cost of repairs. The pump had to be replaced.
The tenancy began in 2020 and it was not until 2024 that problems arose with the septic tank. If the issues had arisen closer to the start of the tenancy then it could well be the case that the problems had been created by former tenants and only just come to light. However the issues in this case occurred after nearly four years. I consider that it is more likely than not that the damage was caused during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
As I have found that the damage was caused during tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
The tenant says that they routinely educate their employees on life in New Zealand and that their workers know about septic tanks and do not use wet wipes. They say that their employee authorised part payment of the landlord’s invoices without their knowledge and without them understanding the total likely costs. They say that their employees are not responsible for the issues that occurred with the septic tank.
The tenant provided a copy of the house rules given to their employees (which confirm grease cannot be put down the sink and only human waste and toilet paper can be flushed down the toilet) and email correspondence from a number of their employees confirming that they had not used wet wipes.
The landlord provided copies of all invoices, relevant photos showing the condition of the septic tank (grease and wet wipes). They also provided evidence from KPL who installed a new septic tank in 2017 (as confirmed by invoice). KPL confirmed that the tank does not require regular servicing and has an expected lifespan of at least 10 years.
I have taken into account the email evidence provided by the tenant’s employees but note that none of these employees had been living at the property for the entire duration of the tenancy. I have also taken into account the information given to employees but note that the information on these issues is only a small part of very comprehensive advice given on a whole range of issues.
Having carefully considered all of the evidence I consider that the damage was more likely than not caused by careless flushing of fat and wet wipes during the tenancy. The photos show grease and fat and the report from The Wet Sparky who attended the site records: “found the level transducer had failed due to fat build up. This caused the pump chamber to overflow and flood the pump motor. We also found a lot of wipes and fat build up on the other components”
Given the duration of this tenancy it is unlikely that the fat build up and wet wipes could be the responsibility of the previous tenants.
The insurance in this case is slightly more complicated than usual as the insurance has not covered all of the damage (as there are some exclusions). The tenant is therefore liable for the insurance excess, the uninsured portion of the claim, less amounts already paid. I have however deducted the amount of the invoice that was introduced by the landlord just prior to this hearing $172.50) as this was for a check of the septic tank following the hearing, and was not to clear out the septic tank or repair the damage, and this invoice was not included in the landlord’s application.
The amount of compensation ordered is therefore $1,020.65 (the amount sought of $1,192.65 less the invoice amount of $172.50).
Because Village Estate Agents Limited acting as agent for Danielle Wang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $20.44.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4918617 — Cleanliness at 1031 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Riverhead, Riverhead

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4918617 — Cleanliness at 1031 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Riverhead, Riverhead

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of cleaning out and repairing the septic tank?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the cost of cleaning out and repairing the septic tank?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions