What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4928996 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 4928996?

Compensation: Breakfast: $24.60 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Dinner: $59.25 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Electricity: $59.12 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Food: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Laundromat Costs: $24.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Petrol: $48.05 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $302.88 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4928996?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4928996?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11041393-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4928996 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 4928996?

Compensation: Breakfast: $24.60 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Dinner: $59.25 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Electricity: $59.12 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Food: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Laundromat Costs: $24.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Petrol: $48.05 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $302.88 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4928996?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4928996?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11041393-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4928996 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4928996 — net $694.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breakfast	$24.60	Breakfast
Compensation: Dinner	$59.25	Dinner
Compensation: Petrol	$48.05	Petrol
Compensation: Food	$150.00	Food
Compensation: Electricity	$59.12	Electricity
Compensation: Property damage	$302.88	Property damage
Compensation: Laundromat costs	$24.00	Laundromat costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$694.90
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$694.90

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details and of the address of the premises.
must pay immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
[The tenant/s] claims compensation and exemplary damages for what he says is a breach of the landlord’s obligations under s.45(1)(b) RTA.
That obligation is to “...provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.”
Breaching that obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
These premises are quite new. Background
The tenant’s evidence, which is largely corroborated by the landlord’s internal records is that around 5:00pm on 21 May 2024 the tenant noticed from his security cameras, water running from the fibre connection point toward the dwelling. He notified the landlord, and an urgent work order was sent out for a plumber and electrician to attend.
It had been raining heavily and the plumber who attended, determined that the leak was a stormwater issue which would resolve itself once it had stopped raining. On that assumption, he made the decision that there was no need to turn off the water supply to the premises.
It transpired that the leak was in fact caused by a burst water main, and water continued leaking into the premises overnight until the plumber was called again the next morning and the water supply was turned off at approximately 10:00am.
Due to the extensive water damage, the tenant and his family were required to vacate the premises while the premises were dried, and the water damage repaired. They stayed for 9 days in alternative accommodation provided by the landlord.
The tenant further says that he was told that a generator would be installed to continue the electricity supply to the premises, which did not happen, meaning that the refrigerated and frozen food in the premises was spoiled.
In consequence, the tenant is seeking the following compensation: Compensation: Breakfast $24.60 Compensation: Dinner $59.25 Compensation: Petrol $48.05 Compensation: Laundromat$24.00 Compensation: Property damage -Spa mats -Rug -Couches -Fish $127.50 $95.3 $80.00
50 Compensation: Food $293.00 Compensation: Electricity $59.12 Compensation: Emotional harm $500.00

Was the landlord in breach of its obligations?

There is no doubt that the tenant met his obligation under section 40(1)(d) to, “...notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs.”
Having been notified, the landlord, through its contractors and in particular the plumber, had the opportunity to prevent continuing damage to the premises by turning off the water supply.
The landlord’s position is that the prevailing weather conditions at the time made it a reasonable for the plumber to assume the water inundation to be caused by the weather event, rather than by a burst mains pipe in what were quite new premises. Nevertheless, the plumber was mistaken about that. Whether or not the plumber’s assumption about the cause of the water ingress is understandable, as a result of that assessment by the landlord’s contractor, loss and inconvenience were caused to the tenant, who, as noted, had fully met his obligations under the RTA.
I therefore find that the tenant is entitled to compensation for the reasonable and foreseeable losses caused by that error.
I would not consider it just to make any punitive award of exemplary damages against the landlord, which acted promptly and responsibly in urgently dispatching tradespeople to assess and address the situation. I also find no basis in the evidence to allow the tenant’s claim for compensation for emotional harm. Both parties were dealing with a difficult and unforeseen situation.

What compensation should be awarded?

The need for the tenant and his family to vacate the premises as a result of the damage caused by the continued overnight flooding from the burst mains pipe, is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the decision not to discontinue the water supply to the premises.
I accept as reasonable, the tenant’s calculation of his losses in terms of food costs, petrol costs and the costs for using a laundromat while away from the home.
I accept that the tenant should be compensation for the cost of electricity used at the premises, drying them and remediating damage, while he and his family were not in occupation. The basis on which that compensation is calculated by the tenant is appropriate.
The landlord’s records appear to corroborate the tenant’s evidence that the initial intent was to set up a generator but that ultimately, “No generator was used due to the smell of the fumes if it was to be left inside and there were concerns it would be taken if left outside overnight”.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that he was not told of that decision and given an opportunity to remove perishables. In those circumstances the spoiling of food in the refrigerator/ freezer is a reasonably foreseeable outcome. I have no evidence on which to calculate the tenant’s actual loss and consider compensation of $150.00 to be reasonable.
The tenant claims compensation for the loss of a couch, rug, spa mat.
I am satisfied on balance that those items were damaged in the way described. The compensation sums claimed are reasonable and supported by evidence provided by the tenant.
I do not have a basis for assessing the loss caused by the death of the tenants’ fish. Also, that loss was caused not by disconnection of the electricity supply (the tradespeople turned the fish tank on when power was reconnected) but by the tenant not returning to the premises to feed them. The tenant says that was because he was denied permission to do so, but that claim is not proved by the evidence. The landlord’s notes record that “25/5 – customer went back to the property to sort out his fish tank”. Work Order
The tenant seeks a work order that a skip bin be provided by the landlord so he can dispose of his damaged goods. The tenant accepts that the request for a skip is partly due to his wish to assist a neighbour to dispose of items as well. The landlord should ensure that the items noted in paragraph 22 of this Order are able to be disposed of without cost to the tenant, but the evidence does not prove grounds for issuing a work order requiring the landlord to provide a skip.
As the tenant has had claims upheld, I reimburse the filing fee.
This Order replaces the Tribunal’s Order dated 5 November 2024 which incorrectly recorded the payment amount as $664.90.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4928996 — net $694.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breakfast	$24.60	Breakfast
Compensation: Dinner	$59.25	Dinner
Compensation: Petrol	$48.05	Petrol
Compensation: Food	$150.00	Food
Compensation: Electricity	$59.12	Electricity
Compensation: Property damage	$302.88	Property damage
Compensation: Laundromat costs	$24.00	Laundromat costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$694.90
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$694.90

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details and of the address of the premises.
must pay immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
[The tenant/s] claims compensation and exemplary damages for what he says is a breach of the landlord’s obligations under s.45(1)(b) RTA.
That obligation is to “...provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.”
Breaching that obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
These premises are quite new. Background
The tenant’s evidence, which is largely corroborated by the landlord’s internal records is that around 5:00pm on 21 May 2024 the tenant noticed from his security cameras, water running from the fibre connection point toward the dwelling. He notified the landlord, and an urgent work order was sent out for a plumber and electrician to attend.
It had been raining heavily and the plumber who attended, determined that the leak was a stormwater issue which would resolve itself once it had stopped raining. On that assumption, he made the decision that there was no need to turn off the water supply to the premises.
It transpired that the leak was in fact caused by a burst water main, and water continued leaking into the premises overnight until the plumber was called again the next morning and the water supply was turned off at approximately 10:00am.
Due to the extensive water damage, the tenant and his family were required to vacate the premises while the premises were dried, and the water damage repaired. They stayed for 9 days in alternative accommodation provided by the landlord.
The tenant further says that he was told that a generator would be installed to continue the electricity supply to the premises, which did not happen, meaning that the refrigerated and frozen food in the premises was spoiled.
In consequence, the tenant is seeking the following compensation: Compensation: Breakfast $24.60 Compensation: Dinner $59.25 Compensation: Petrol $48.05 Compensation: Laundromat$24.00 Compensation: Property damage -Spa mats -Rug -Couches -Fish $127.50 $95.3 $80.00
50 Compensation: Food $293.00 Compensation: Electricity $59.12 Compensation: Emotional harm $500.00

Was the landlord in breach of its obligations?

There is no doubt that the tenant met his obligation under section 40(1)(d) to, “...notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs.”
Having been notified, the landlord, through its contractors and in particular the plumber, had the opportunity to prevent continuing damage to the premises by turning off the water supply.
The landlord’s position is that the prevailing weather conditions at the time made it a reasonable for the plumber to assume the water inundation to be caused by the weather event, rather than by a burst mains pipe in what were quite new premises. Nevertheless, the plumber was mistaken about that. Whether or not the plumber’s assumption about the cause of the water ingress is understandable, as a result of that assessment by the landlord’s contractor, loss and inconvenience were caused to the tenant, who, as noted, had fully met his obligations under the RTA.
I therefore find that the tenant is entitled to compensation for the reasonable and foreseeable losses caused by that error.
I would not consider it just to make any punitive award of exemplary damages against the landlord, which acted promptly and responsibly in urgently dispatching tradespeople to assess and address the situation. I also find no basis in the evidence to allow the tenant’s claim for compensation for emotional harm. Both parties were dealing with a difficult and unforeseen situation.

What compensation should be awarded?

The need for the tenant and his family to vacate the premises as a result of the damage caused by the continued overnight flooding from the burst mains pipe, is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the decision not to discontinue the water supply to the premises.
I accept as reasonable, the tenant’s calculation of his losses in terms of food costs, petrol costs and the costs for using a laundromat while away from the home.
I accept that the tenant should be compensation for the cost of electricity used at the premises, drying them and remediating damage, while he and his family were not in occupation. The basis on which that compensation is calculated by the tenant is appropriate.
The landlord’s records appear to corroborate the tenant’s evidence that the initial intent was to set up a generator but that ultimately, “No generator was used due to the smell of the fumes if it was to be left inside and there were concerns it would be taken if left outside overnight”.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that he was not told of that decision and given an opportunity to remove perishables. In those circumstances the spoiling of food in the refrigerator/ freezer is a reasonably foreseeable outcome. I have no evidence on which to calculate the tenant’s actual loss and consider compensation of $150.00 to be reasonable.
The tenant claims compensation for the loss of a couch, rug, spa mat.
I am satisfied on balance that those items were damaged in the way described. The compensation sums claimed are reasonable and supported by evidence provided by the tenant.
I do not have a basis for assessing the loss caused by the death of the tenants’ fish. Also, that loss was caused not by disconnection of the electricity supply (the tradespeople turned the fish tank on when power was reconnected) but by the tenant not returning to the premises to feed them. The tenant says that was because he was denied permission to do so, but that claim is not proved by the evidence. The landlord’s notes record that “25/5 – customer went back to the property to sort out his fish tank”. Work Order
The tenant seeks a work order that a skip bin be provided by the landlord so he can dispose of his damaged goods. The tenant accepts that the request for a skip is partly due to his wish to assist a neighbour to dispose of items as well. The landlord should ensure that the items noted in paragraph 22 of this Order are able to be disposed of without cost to the tenant, but the evidence does not prove grounds for issuing a work order requiring the landlord to provide a skip.
As the tenant has had claims upheld, I reimburse the filing fee.
This Order replaces the Tribunal’s Order dated 5 November 2024 which incorrectly recorded the payment amount as $664.90.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4928996 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4928996 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the landlord in breach of its obligations?

What compensation should be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the landlord in breach of its obligations?

What compensation should be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions