What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5079989?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 (5336862-019) to Mukul

How much money was awarded in case 5079989?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5079989?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5079989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11612544-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5079989?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 (5336862-019) to Mukul

How much money was awarded in case 5079989?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5079989?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5079989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11612544-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 3B, 34 Kingston Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5079989 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The Tenants have applied for breach of Healthy Home Standards, reimbursement of filing fee and refund of the bond.

The parties who bring a claim before the Tribunal have the onus of proving their case and the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. This means they have to provide the supporting evidence to prove their case is more likely than not correct and it is not for the Tribunal to extract this information for them.

The Landlord installed a washing machine at the property approximately five years ago. On 18 June 2024, when the tenancy commenced, it was agreed there were no issues noted with the washing machine.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: flooding of the bathroom floor and other tenants apartment.

The Landlord submitted the flooding occurred because the tenants, went to sleep whilst using the washing machine and as a result , the hose loosened and caused leaking..

The Landlord provided a written statement from a technician, Mr. Wang Jie, who inspected the washing machine on 15 December 2024. He was a handyman and appliance repair technician however no qualifications were provided.

Mr Jie confirmed the leakage was caused by improper adjustment or movement of the drainage pipe. The washing machine had no history of leaks prior to the current tenants' occupancy, and no previous tenants had reported any issues. The tenants used the machine multiple times without incident after moving in and never informed the landlord of any problems. After the drainage pipe was adjusted to its proper position, the machine functioned without leaks, suggesting the issue resulted from the tenants' negligence or improper handling.

The landlord urged the Tribunal to consider that, given the absence of prior leaks, the machine operated normally after the adjustment and continues to function months later. This strongly indicated the problem arose due to the tenants' misuse during their tenancy.

The Landlord submitted the bathroom tiles in the apartment did not meet pool tile waterproofing standards and were never intended to prevent long-term or high-volume water exposure. The water was mismanaged in this case when the tenants left the washing machine running unattended. The Landlord referred to the case of Rutherford v. Wilson, which highlights tenant responsibility for damages caused by their actions.

The Landlord also referred to a case, Porter v. Auckland Council [2018], which states tenants are liable for damage from improper usage.

The Tenants submitted that they used the washing machine as they normally would one night after work. Despite this, the hose came out of the drainage hole and caused water to leak on the floor. The Tenant contacted the Landlord to report it immediately. The Tenant submitted that sometimes the washing machine trembled which could have caused the hose to move. They were never advised to check the hose during the tenancy. They also noted the tiles were cracked which may have also caused the water to permeate through to the downstairs apartment.

The Tenants called a witness, Mr Kumar who owned a maintenance company that undertook renovations. Mr Kumar was not a plumber and there was no evidence of his qualifications. Mr Kumar had not inspected the property but stated that it did not sound like the Tenants had misused the washing machine.

In considering the evidence, I find the Tenants are not liable for the damage caused by the washing machine. There was no solid evidence from the landlord as to why the hose would have detached or misaligned so it was difficult to tell if the hose moved due to wear or tear or due to an individual forcefully moving it or the machine was used in a neglectful manner for example overloading. Evidence from an expert in washing machine appliances would have been helpful.

In addition to this, the Landlord did not advise the Tenants to check the hose before using it. As far as the Tenants were concerned, the washing machine and hose came with the house and were in good working order. The Landlord also submitted the Tenants were negligent in their use of the washing machine because they went to sleep while it was operating. I do not consider normal use of the washing machine to be where the user must watch a machine during a whole cycle. Normal useage of a washing machine involves leaving it unsupervised to work.

For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards

The Tenants claimed the Landlord was in breach of Healthy Home Standards and had not been compliant within the 90-day timeframe for moisture control and lack of waterproofing. They submitted pursuant to E3 of the Building Code, wet areas like showers and laundry rooms must have waterproofing for at least

5 meters around water sources. Because it did not have this, it may have caused damage to the downstairs structure, mould growth, and health risks.

The Landlord denied this.

In considering the evidence, the Tenant’s have claimed the breach but not provided any evidence to support this such as a Healthy Homes report or evidence from a builder or Tradesperson to confirm that the property had no waterproofing.

For this reason the claim is dismissed.

As neither party has been successful in their claims, name suppression is not granted and each party shall pay their own filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The Tenants have applied for breach of Healthy Home Standards, reimbursement of filing fee and refund of the bond.

The Landlord installed a washing machine at the property approximately five years ago. On 18 June 2024, when the tenancy commenced, it was agreed there were no issues noted with the washing machine.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: flooding of the bathroom floor and other tenants apartment.

The Landlord submitted the flooding occurred because the tenants, went to sleep whilst using the washing machine and as a result , the hose loosened and caused leaking..

The Landlord also referred to a case, Porter v. Auckland Council [2018], which states tenants are liable for damage from improper usage.

For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards

5 meters around water sources. Because it did not have this, it may have caused damage to the downstairs structure, mould growth, and health risks.

The Landlord denied this.

For this reason the claim is dismissed.

As neither party has been successful in their claims, name suppression is not granted and each party shall pay their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5079989 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Flat 3B, 34 Kingston Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5079989 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Flat 3B, 34 Kingston Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions