What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5010349 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 5010349?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5010349?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5010349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11183456-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5010349 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 5010349?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5010349?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5010349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11183456-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5010349 — Leaks

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
The application by the tenant is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The Tenants applied for an Order made by the Tribunal to exempt them from paying for the insurance excess caused by a water leak at the property and paying the plumbers call out fee. At the hearing the Landlord agreed to pay $280.00 for the plumbers call out fee.
By way of background, the tenancy began on 26 February 2024.On 11 August 2024, the Tenants noted water leaking from the upstairs bathroom and contacted the Landlords. A plumber was sent by the Landlords to repair the issue. The Landlords requested the Tenants pay for the insurance excess to repair the bathroom damage. The Tenants dispute they were the cause of the damage.
When parties make an application to the court, the onus is on the Applicant to present their case and prove their claim. This means they must present all of the available supporting evidence before or at the time of the hearing. It is not the role of the Tribunal to extract this evidence or gather it for the parties. Tenants argument
The Tenants submit that they did not cause the leak that damaged the bathroom on 11 August 2024. They deny leaving the upstairs vanity tap on. They contend that the issue was related to the pipes, and even if the leak was due to a sink overflow, the sink should have been equipped with an overflow protection system to prevent such an incident. Upon noticing the water leak, the Tenants immediately contacted the Landlord, who responded by sending a plumber within a few hours and instructed them to turn off the main water supply.
The Tenants reported that there had been multiple other instances of leakage and ongoing maintenance issues with the property since the start of their tenancy. These issues, which began around May 2024, included persistent low water pressure in the downstairs shower, a blockage in the pipe causing the hot water to fail, a leaking washing machine, leaks near the laundry area, and leaking pipes from the upstairs sink. The Tenants did not believe they were responsible for the damage and refused to pay the insurance excess.
To support their claims, the Tenants referred to the plumber's invoice, as well as email correspondence between themselves and the Landlord. Landlords argument
The Landlord submitted that the Tenants were liable for the damage, referencing the plumber's report, which indicated that the cause of the damage was a Tenant leaving the tap in the vanity on. The plumber found no leakage in the pipes within the house. The Landlord also cited information from the Tenancy Services website regarding tenant liability for careless damage.
In support of their arguments, they provided photographs of the vanity and the leak under the sink and two Plumbers invoice. The Plumbers invoice stated “it was fairly obvious that the water leakage had come from the upstairs sink overflowing. I could not find any leaking water pipes in the vanity or in the walls. It looks like the sink has filled up to the top and water has got under the surface of the laminate top. You can see where the laminate top has peeled away from the MDF. It may be a good idea to install a vanity with an internal overflow”.
A Plumber was sent again to the property to investigate a leak on 23 August 2024 and this invoice stated: “Let resident know that the issue is possibly with the drain on the washing machine as there is no other signs of leaks from water supply or discharge” The Law
Section 45 (1) (b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that a Landlord: “Shall 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”
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenants did not sufficiently prove that the leakage was caused by the lack of protective overflow or that the Landlord did not maintain the property to a reasonable state of repair.
The Landlord presented evidence from the Plumber, who indicated that the cause of the leak was likely due to taps being left on, resulting in water overflow. The Tenants referenced other leaks and defects at the property, suggesting these issues might indicate an underlying problem. However, the Tenants did not provide independent professional evidence to establish that these issues were interconnected or that the leak was caused by factors contrary to the plumber’s assessment. Once the Landlord was made aware of the defect, a plumber was promptly dispatched within a reasonable timeframe, and as such, I do not find the Landlord to be in breach of their obligations. Additionally, the Landlord made efforts to resolve the matter through mediation.
The Tenants stated there was no protective overflow for the sink installed however this was an older house and there was no evidence provided that the vanity was defective or non-compliant with any heath or building regulations.
The Tenants did not sufficiently prove their case and the application is dismissed.
An order requiring the Tenants to pay the Landlord the insurance excess has not been issued, as the Landlord was required to submit a separate application to the Tribunal for this purpose.
As the Landlord has been wholly successful, name suppression is granted to the Landlord but not the Tenants. The Tenants have not been successful so name suppression is not granted.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
The application by the tenant is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The Tenants applied for an Order made by the Tribunal to exempt them from paying for the insurance excess caused by a water leak at the property and paying the plumbers call out fee. At the hearing the Landlord agreed to pay $280.00 for the plumbers call out fee.
By way of background, the tenancy began on 26 February 2024.On 11 August 2024, the Tenants noted water leaking from the upstairs bathroom and contacted the Landlords. A plumber was sent by the Landlords to repair the issue. The Landlords requested the Tenants pay for the insurance excess to repair the bathroom damage. The Tenants dispute they were the cause of the damage.
When parties make an application to the court, the onus is on the Applicant to present their case and prove their claim. This means they must present all of the available supporting evidence before or at the time of the hearing. It is not the role of the Tribunal to extract this evidence or gather it for the parties. Tenants argument
The Tenants submit that they did not cause the leak that damaged the bathroom on 11 August 2024. They deny leaving the upstairs vanity tap on. They contend that the issue was related to the pipes, and even if the leak was due to a sink overflow, the sink should have been equipped with an overflow protection system to prevent such an incident. Upon noticing the water leak, the Tenants immediately contacted the Landlord, who responded by sending a plumber within a few hours and instructed them to turn off the main water supply.
The Tenants reported that there had been multiple other instances of leakage and ongoing maintenance issues with the property since the start of their tenancy. These issues, which began around May 2024, included persistent low water pressure in the downstairs shower, a blockage in the pipe causing the hot water to fail, a leaking washing machine, leaks near the laundry area, and leaking pipes from the upstairs sink. The Tenants did not believe they were responsible for the damage and refused to pay the insurance excess.
To support their claims, the Tenants referred to the plumber's invoice, as well as email correspondence between themselves and the Landlord. Landlords argument
The Landlord submitted that the Tenants were liable for the damage, referencing the plumber's report, which indicated that the cause of the damage was a Tenant leaving the tap in the vanity on. The plumber found no leakage in the pipes within the house. The Landlord also cited information from the Tenancy Services website regarding tenant liability for careless damage.
In support of their arguments, they provided photographs of the vanity and the leak under the sink and two Plumbers invoice. The Plumbers invoice stated “it was fairly obvious that the water leakage had come from the upstairs sink overflowing. I could not find any leaking water pipes in the vanity or in the walls. It looks like the sink has filled up to the top and water has got under the surface of the laminate top. You can see where the laminate top has peeled away from the MDF. It may be a good idea to install a vanity with an internal overflow”.
A Plumber was sent again to the property to investigate a leak on 23 August 2024 and this invoice stated: “Let resident know that the issue is possibly with the drain on the washing machine as there is no other signs of leaks from water supply or discharge” The Law
Section 45 (1) (b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that a Landlord: “Shall 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”
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenants did not sufficiently prove that the leakage was caused by the lack of protective overflow or that the Landlord did not maintain the property to a reasonable state of repair.
The Landlord presented evidence from the Plumber, who indicated that the cause of the leak was likely due to taps being left on, resulting in water overflow. The Tenants referenced other leaks and defects at the property, suggesting these issues might indicate an underlying problem. However, the Tenants did not provide independent professional evidence to establish that these issues were interconnected or that the leak was caused by factors contrary to the plumber’s assessment. Once the Landlord was made aware of the defect, a plumber was promptly dispatched within a reasonable timeframe, and as such, I do not find the Landlord to be in breach of their obligations. Additionally, the Landlord made efforts to resolve the matter through mediation.
The Tenants stated there was no protective overflow for the sink installed however this was an older house and there was no evidence provided that the vanity was defective or non-compliant with any heath or building regulations.
The Tenants did not sufficiently prove their case and the application is dismissed.
An order requiring the Tenants to pay the Landlord the insurance excess has not been issued, as the Landlord was required to submit a separate application to the Tribunal for this purpose.
As the Landlord has been wholly successful, name suppression is granted to the Landlord but not the Tenants. The Tenants have not been successful so name suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5010349 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5010349 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions