What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4932821 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee is

How much money was awarded in case 4932821?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4932821?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4932821?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10840545-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4932821 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee is

How much money was awarded in case 4932821?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4932821?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4932821?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10840545-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 32 Borman Road, Huntington, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4932821 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for reimbursement of $138 being the cost of repairs to the waste disposal unit fitted in the kitchen sink.
The evidence establishes that the unit stopped working requiring a plumber to unblock it, after the tenant had used it to dispose of potato, curry and food scraps (including dahl) after a family gathering/dinner at the property.
A plumber was called, and the invoice is the basis of the $138 compensation the landlord has claimed. The plumbers note confirmed that he was unable to identify precisely what had blocked the unit. The unit worked again after it was unblocked.
The tenant said no children live at the property, he does not use the unit often (because of previous problems with it albeit that those problems were rectified by pushing a red overload button attached to it) and instead mostly they use food bins provided by the Council to dispose of food scraps. He also said he had no idea that potato scraps or rice should not be put into the unit as they might block it.
The applicant suggested the instruction book for the unit might clarify this, but [the tenant] said if it was provided, he has not read it in that degree of detail.
[The tenant] also said he would willingly pay the invoice if he considered he was at fault, but he does not.

Is the tenant responsible for the repair cost?

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.
The issue is then whether it is careless to use a food disposal unit to dispose of soft food (potatoes, curry and dahl were the specific items identified) after a dinner party. The tenant said he ran water with the food scraps.
In my view the answer is no. the evidence falls short of establishing negligence or carelessness. Waste disposal units are designed specifically to dispose of food waste. While I would accept, that it is common knowledge putting hard sharp objects such as bones and cutlery into the unit might cause damage, I cannot make that assumption about soft, cooked food items.
Unless the tenant was specifically on notice that soft food such as potato and rice might block the unit (and he is now), then I do not think it reasonable to presume that it is common knowledge that soft foods like this might cause damage to the unit.
While the landlord suggested the instruction manual was provided and would have contained this information, there is no firm evidence of this, and the tenant said he had not read it and was not aware that these items should not be placed into the unit.
In conclusion while the unit was damaged during the tenancy, I am unable to find the evidence establishes that using it in the way described was careless.
As the applicant has failed to establish the claim, which is that the damage was caused by the tenants careless or negligent actions, to the civil law standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities, the claim must be dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has not substantially succeeded with the claim I decline to reimburse the filing fee.
The parties’ names are to be supressed as there is little public interest in publishing their respective names.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for reimbursement of $138 being the cost of repairs to the waste disposal unit fitted in the kitchen sink.

The evidence establishes that the unit stopped working requiring a plumber to unblock it, after the tenant had used it to dispose of potato, curry and food scraps (including dahl) after a family gathering/dinner at the property.

A plumber was called, and the invoice is the basis of the $138 compensation the landlord has claimed. The plumbers note confirmed that he was unable to identify precisely what had blocked the unit. The unit worked again after it was unblocked.

The tenant said no children live at the property, he does not use the unit often (because of previous problems with it albeit that those problems were rectified by pushing a red overload button attached to it) and instead mostly they use food bins provided by the Council to dispose of food scraps. He also said he had no idea that potato scraps or rice should not be put into the unit as they might block it.

The applicant suggested the instruction book for the unit might clarify this, but [the tenant] said if it was provided, he has not read it in that degree of detail.

[The tenant] also said he would willingly pay the invoice if he considered he was at fault, but he does not.

Is the tenant responsible for the repair cost?

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.

The issue is then whether it is careless to use a food disposal unit to dispose of soft food (potatoes, curry and dahl were the specific items identified) after a dinner party. The tenant said he ran water with the food scraps.

In my view the answer is no. the evidence falls short of establishing negligence or carelessness. Waste disposal units are designed specifically to dispose of food waste. While I would accept, that it is common knowledge putting hard sharp objects such as bones and cutlery into the unit might cause damage, I cannot make that assumption about soft, cooked food items.

Unless the tenant was specifically on notice that soft food such as potato and rice might block the unit (and he is now), then I do not think it reasonable to presume that it is common knowledge that soft foods like this might cause damage to the unit.

While the landlord suggested the instruction manual was provided and would have contained this information, there is no firm evidence of this, and the tenant said he had not read it and was not aware that these items should not be placed into the unit.

In conclusion while the unit was damaged during the tenancy, I am unable to find the evidence establishes that using it in the way described was careless.

As the applicant has failed to establish the claim, which is that the damage was caused by the tenants careless or negligent actions, to the civil law standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities, the claim must be dismissed.

Because [The applicant/s] has not substantially succeeded with the claim I decline to reimburse the filing fee.

The parties’ names are to be supressed as there is little public interest in publishing their respective names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4932821 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 4, 32 Borman Road, Huntington, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4932821 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 4, 32 Borman Road, Huntington, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the repair cost?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the repair cost?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions