What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5104148 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 5104148?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5104148?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5104148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11414857-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5104148 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 5104148?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5104148?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5104148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11414857-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5104148 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5104148 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess	$500.00	Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s names and identifying details.
Maryam Al-Adawi and Miqat Al-Sabahi must pay [The landlord/s] $527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 24 December 2024.
The landlords have filed a claim for reimbursement of insurance excess of $500.00 due to careless damage caused by the tenants on 11 August 2024. The claim
The landlords state that the tenants initially reported a leak from the washing machine, but later identified the source as the upstairs bathroom. The landlords engaged a plumber, who inspected the property and reported on 14 August 2024 that there were no leaking pipes or tapware. Instead, the plumber confirmed that the water damage was caused by the upstairs sink overflowing. The report also noted that water had seeped under the vanity top, causing damage to the laminate and MDF. The landlords assert that this incident resulted from tenant carelessness, given that the tenants later admitted in their own previous Tribunal application (application 5010349) that the sink overflowed. The landlords also rely on text messages from the tenants during the event stating that “nothing is leaking anymore”, which they argue suggests the tap was turned off, ruling out a continuous leak. The landlords claim they have attempted to resolve the issue through mediation and negotiation but without success. They believe they have acted fairly and reasonably throughout the process and seek reimbursement for the $500.00 insurance excess, as the total damage amounted to approximately $11,000.00.
The tenants dispute liability, arguing that the sink lacks an internal overflow system, making it prone to such issues due to its design. They state that they were not careless and that the overflow was more likely related to the vanity setup rather than their actions. They further claim that the landlords have failed to maintain the property adequately, citing a series of previous plumbing issues, including a hot water cylinder failure, persistent shower pressure problems, and ongoing washing machine drainage issues. The tenants believe the landlords have shifted blame onto them for what they consider a systemic issue with the property’s drainage and plumbing. They also raise concerns about the landlords’ handling of the situation, including pressure to settle the matter quickly and a lack of transparency regarding additional fees added to the claim. Legal framework
Tenants are responsible for ensuring they do not damage the rental property. If damage does occur, the key question is whether it was caused deliberately, carelessly, or due to a pre-existing issue with the property. See section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)
Tenants are liable for any careless damage they cause, but if the damage results from a defect or lack of maintenance, the landlord may be responsible instead. If tenants cause damage through carelessness, they must pay for the repairs up to a set limit, which is the insurance excess or four weeks rent, whichever is lower. See section 49B RTA.
However, landlords must also maintain the rental property to a reasonable standard. Landlords are obliged to keep the premises in a reasonable state of repair, taking into account the property’s age and condition. See section 45(1)(b) RTA. If a defect in the property contributed to the damage, the tenant may not be liable.
The onus is on the landlords, as the applicant, to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenants were careless and that this carelessness directly caused the damage. The Tribunal must also consider whether the landlords fulfilled their maintenance responsibilities under section 45(1)(b) before determining whether the tenants should be held liable.

Did the tenants carelessly cause the damage?

I find the evidence supports the landlords’ position that the sink overflowed due to tenant carelessness. The plumber’s report confirms that there were no leaks in the pipes or vanity, and the damage was consistent with water overflowing from the sink. The tenants’ own previous Tribunal application acknowledges that the sink overflowed, which is a key factor in determining responsibility. The fact that the tenants initially denied the cause but later admitted it raises concerns about the reliability of their initial claims. The tenants argue that the sink’s design flaw contributed to the event, but the plumber did not indicate that the lack of an overflow system made the sink defective. Instead, the report only suggested that installing an internal overflow system may be a good idea, which does not establish that the landlords were in breach of their maintenance obligations. The landlords have provided further evidence that most sinks do not have built-in overflow systems, suggesting that this is not an unusual or defective feature.
The tenants have not provided any independent evidence from an appropriately qualified person to support their claim that the overflow was caused by a defect in the sink or vanity. Given that the landlords have submitted a plumber’s report confirming there were no leaks and that the overflow was due to water filling up in the sink, an independent expert assessment from a plumber or building professional would have been important in supporting the tenants’ argument. Without expert evidence, their claim that the sink’s design made the overflow unavoidable remains unsubstantiated. In cases where a party disputes a technical finding, such as a plumbing assessment, independent verification is critical to establish an alternative explanation. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal must rely on the available expert opinion provided by the landlords.
Carelessness does not require intentional damage; rather, it means failing to take reasonable precautions. Given the evidence, it is more likely than not that the tenants were careless in allowing the sink to overflow.

Are the landlords partially responsible?

The tenants' concerns about historical plumbing and drainage issues are noted, but they do not alter the fact that the damage in this particular case was caused by an overflowing sink, rather than a structural defect or pre-existing leak. While the tenants have raised broader maintenance concerns regarding past incidents, there is no clear evidence connecting these issues to the specific overflow event on 11 August 2024. The plumber’s findings further clarify that the overflow was not the result of a pre-existing fault in the vanity or drainage system. Instead, the evidence suggests the overflow was preventable, stemming from the sink being left to fill unattended. The tenants' text message stating, “nothing is leaking anymore,” strongly supports the conclusion that the water flow was within their control at the time.
Based on the available evidence, I am satisfied that the landlords have taken appropriate and timely action in addressing this issue. There is no clear evidence indicating that the landlords’ failure to maintain the property contributed to or caused the overflow event. In fact, the landlords promptly responded to the incident and arranged for necessary repairs.
The other concerns raised by the tenants, such as pressure to settle the matter quickly and the lack of transparency regarding additional fees added to the claim, are unrelated to the cause of the damage and do not impact the landlords’ responsibility in this instance. These concerns, while important, do not change the fact that the overflow event was primarily a result of tenant actions, and there is no evidence to support the claim that the landlords’ maintenance obligations played a role in the incident.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlords are not partially responsible for the damage caused by the sink overflow.

Are the tenants liable for the insurance excess?

Given the evidence provided, the landlords have met the burden of proving that the damage resulted from the tenants’ carelessness. Under section 49B, the tenants are liable for the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent. As the damage is covered by the landlords’ insurance, the excess amount of $500.00 is payable by the tenants. The landlords’ application is therefore upheld, and the tenants are ordered to pay the landlords $500.00. Conclusion
The tenants are liable for the $500.00 insurance excess under sections 40(2)(a) and 49B RTA, as the damage resulted from careless rather than intentional actions.
The landlords are not responsible for the overflow event, as there is no evidence of a property defect causing the damage.
The tenants’ claims regarding historical maintenance issues do not negate their liability for this specific event. Filing fee and suppression order
As the landlords have been entirely successful in their claim, I order the tenants to reimburse the filing fee in accordance with section 102 RTA. Additionally, I grant suppression of the landlords’ names and identifying details under section 95 RTA. The tenants have not succeeded in their defence, and as there are no other grounds justifying suppression, I decline to grant suppression of the tenants’ names.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5104148 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess	$500.00	Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s names and identifying details.
Maryam Al-Adawi and Miqat Al-Sabahi must pay [The landlord/s] $527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 24 December 2024.
The landlords have filed a claim for reimbursement of insurance excess of $500.00 due to careless damage caused by the tenants on 11 August 2024. The claim
The landlords state that the tenants initially reported a leak from the washing machine, but later identified the source as the upstairs bathroom. The landlords engaged a plumber, who inspected the property and reported on 14 August 2024 that there were no leaking pipes or tapware. Instead, the plumber confirmed that the water damage was caused by the upstairs sink overflowing. The report also noted that water had seeped under the vanity top, causing damage to the laminate and MDF. The landlords assert that this incident resulted from tenant carelessness, given that the tenants later admitted in their own previous Tribunal application (application 5010349) that the sink overflowed. The landlords also rely on text messages from the tenants during the event stating that “nothing is leaking anymore”, which they argue suggests the tap was turned off, ruling out a continuous leak. The landlords claim they have attempted to resolve the issue through mediation and negotiation but without success. They believe they have acted fairly and reasonably throughout the process and seek reimbursement for the $500.00 insurance excess, as the total damage amounted to approximately $11,000.00.
The tenants dispute liability, arguing that the sink lacks an internal overflow system, making it prone to such issues due to its design. They state that they were not careless and that the overflow was more likely related to the vanity setup rather than their actions. They further claim that the landlords have failed to maintain the property adequately, citing a series of previous plumbing issues, including a hot water cylinder failure, persistent shower pressure problems, and ongoing washing machine drainage issues. The tenants believe the landlords have shifted blame onto them for what they consider a systemic issue with the property’s drainage and plumbing. They also raise concerns about the landlords’ handling of the situation, including pressure to settle the matter quickly and a lack of transparency regarding additional fees added to the claim. Legal framework
Tenants are responsible for ensuring they do not damage the rental property. If damage does occur, the key question is whether it was caused deliberately, carelessly, or due to a pre-existing issue with the property. See section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)
Tenants are liable for any careless damage they cause, but if the damage results from a defect or lack of maintenance, the landlord may be responsible instead. If tenants cause damage through carelessness, they must pay for the repairs up to a set limit, which is the insurance excess or four weeks rent, whichever is lower. See section 49B RTA.
However, landlords must also maintain the rental property to a reasonable standard. Landlords are obliged to keep the premises in a reasonable state of repair, taking into account the property’s age and condition. See section 45(1)(b) RTA. If a defect in the property contributed to the damage, the tenant may not be liable.
The onus is on the landlords, as the applicant, to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenants were careless and that this carelessness directly caused the damage. The Tribunal must also consider whether the landlords fulfilled their maintenance responsibilities under section 45(1)(b) before determining whether the tenants should be held liable.

Did the tenants carelessly cause the damage?

I find the evidence supports the landlords’ position that the sink overflowed due to tenant carelessness. The plumber’s report confirms that there were no leaks in the pipes or vanity, and the damage was consistent with water overflowing from the sink. The tenants’ own previous Tribunal application acknowledges that the sink overflowed, which is a key factor in determining responsibility. The fact that the tenants initially denied the cause but later admitted it raises concerns about the reliability of their initial claims. The tenants argue that the sink’s design flaw contributed to the event, but the plumber did not indicate that the lack of an overflow system made the sink defective. Instead, the report only suggested that installing an internal overflow system may be a good idea, which does not establish that the landlords were in breach of their maintenance obligations. The landlords have provided further evidence that most sinks do not have built-in overflow systems, suggesting that this is not an unusual or defective feature.
The tenants have not provided any independent evidence from an appropriately qualified person to support their claim that the overflow was caused by a defect in the sink or vanity. Given that the landlords have submitted a plumber’s report confirming there were no leaks and that the overflow was due to water filling up in the sink, an independent expert assessment from a plumber or building professional would have been important in supporting the tenants’ argument. Without expert evidence, their claim that the sink’s design made the overflow unavoidable remains unsubstantiated. In cases where a party disputes a technical finding, such as a plumbing assessment, independent verification is critical to establish an alternative explanation. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal must rely on the available expert opinion provided by the landlords.
Carelessness does not require intentional damage; rather, it means failing to take reasonable precautions. Given the evidence, it is more likely than not that the tenants were careless in allowing the sink to overflow.

Are the landlords partially responsible?

The tenants' concerns about historical plumbing and drainage issues are noted, but they do not alter the fact that the damage in this particular case was caused by an overflowing sink, rather than a structural defect or pre-existing leak. While the tenants have raised broader maintenance concerns regarding past incidents, there is no clear evidence connecting these issues to the specific overflow event on 11 August 2024. The plumber’s findings further clarify that the overflow was not the result of a pre-existing fault in the vanity or drainage system. Instead, the evidence suggests the overflow was preventable, stemming from the sink being left to fill unattended. The tenants' text message stating, “nothing is leaking anymore,” strongly supports the conclusion that the water flow was within their control at the time.
Based on the available evidence, I am satisfied that the landlords have taken appropriate and timely action in addressing this issue. There is no clear evidence indicating that the landlords’ failure to maintain the property contributed to or caused the overflow event. In fact, the landlords promptly responded to the incident and arranged for necessary repairs.
The other concerns raised by the tenants, such as pressure to settle the matter quickly and the lack of transparency regarding additional fees added to the claim, are unrelated to the cause of the damage and do not impact the landlords’ responsibility in this instance. These concerns, while important, do not change the fact that the overflow event was primarily a result of tenant actions, and there is no evidence to support the claim that the landlords’ maintenance obligations played a role in the incident.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlords are not partially responsible for the damage caused by the sink overflow.

Are the tenants liable for the insurance excess?

Given the evidence provided, the landlords have met the burden of proving that the damage resulted from the tenants’ carelessness. Under section 49B, the tenants are liable for the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent. As the damage is covered by the landlords’ insurance, the excess amount of $500.00 is payable by the tenants. The landlords’ application is therefore upheld, and the tenants are ordered to pay the landlords $500.00. Conclusion
The tenants are liable for the $500.00 insurance excess under sections 40(2)(a) and 49B RTA, as the damage resulted from careless rather than intentional actions.
The landlords are not responsible for the overflow event, as there is no evidence of a property defect causing the damage.
The tenants’ claims regarding historical maintenance issues do not negate their liability for this specific event. Filing fee and suppression order
As the landlords have been entirely successful in their claim, I order the tenants to reimburse the filing fee in accordance with section 102 RTA. Additionally, I grant suppression of the landlords’ names and identifying details under section 95 RTA. The tenants have not succeeded in their defence, and as there are no other grounds justifying suppression, I decline to grant suppression of the tenants’ names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5104148 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5104148 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants carelessly cause the damage?

Are the landlords partially responsible?

Are the tenants liable for the insurance excess?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants carelessly cause the damage?

Are the landlords partially responsible?

Are the tenants liable for the insurance excess?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions