What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5122413 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 5122413?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5122413?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5122413?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11651695-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5122413 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 5122413?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5122413?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5122413?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11651695-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5122413 — Leaks

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $550.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 28 March 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 4 January 2024 and ended on 5 January 2025.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The tenants seek release of the bond.
The landlord says that the tenant’s failure to take action has caused damage to the premises. The landlord is insured for tenant damage. The landlord seeks $550.00 compensation, being the insurance excess.
The landlord’s evidence was that he initially received an e-mail from the tenant on 13 April 2024 at 5:30 pm. The landlord was outside New Zealand at this time and had been so for more than 21 consecutive days (see section 16A RTA).
The tenant’s email informed the landlord that the tenant had been using the washing machine, which had been provided as part of the furnished tenancy. The tenant had noticed a water leak. The tenant sought instructions from the landlord. The landlord said that he advised the tenant to close the water taps on the washing machine. The tenant replied by e-mail that he was not sure how to close off the taps. The landlord asked for photos from the tenant of taps so that the landlord could provide appropriate instructions. The landlord told the tenant to close the tap.
Approximately 30 minutes later, the tenant informed the landlord by email that he had been able to turn the tap off and that the leak had stopped. These events occurred on a Saturday evening. The landlord’s contractor attended on the following Monday and repaired the leak. The leak has caused damage to the skirting boards and surrounds. The landlord says that if the tap had been closed when the tenant first saw the leak, the damage would have been limited.
The tenant said that he discovered the leak on Saturday 13 April 2024. He initially attempted to contact the landlord by telephone to inform the landlord of the leak. He tried unsuccessfully on three separate occasions to contact the landlord. He then sent an e-mail to the landlord. The tenant said that he initially looked for the taps to turn off the machine. He couldn't work out where the appropriate taps were. Approximately one hour after discovering the leak, the tenant was able to turn the taps off. The tenant could not say how long the washing machine taps had been leaking for, prior to him discovering the leak.
The tenant said he did not wish to carry out any repairs to the washing machine as he did not know how the plumbing worked and did not wish to cause further damage. He said he was not comfortable working on the pipes.
Section 40(1)(d) RTA provides that a tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or the need for any repairs. The section does not require the tenant to carry out the repairs.
I am satisfied, on the evidence presented by the tenant, that the tenant has, as soon as possible after discovering the leak, made attempts to contact the landlord. The landlord had been outside New Zealand for more than 21 consecutive days without appointing an agent. Section 16A RTA requires a landlord to do so in those circumstances. Had an agent being appointed, the agent would no doubt, have been able to attend to the repairs promptly.
Neither party was able to give evidence on the amount of time that the washing machine had been leaking, prior to the tenant making that discovery.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant has breached his obligation to the landlord under s. 40(1)(d) RTA. The landlord’s application is dismissed. The tenants’ bond is to be released.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has been wholly successful in this hearing and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and details.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $550.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 28 March 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 4 January 2024 and ended on 5 January 2025.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The tenants seek release of the bond.
The landlord says that the tenant’s failure to take action has caused damage to the premises. The landlord is insured for tenant damage. The landlord seeks $550.00 compensation, being the insurance excess.
The landlord’s evidence was that he initially received an e-mail from the tenant on 13 April 2024 at 5:30 pm. The landlord was outside New Zealand at this time and had been so for more than 21 consecutive days (see section 16A RTA).
The tenant’s email informed the landlord that the tenant had been using the washing machine, which had been provided as part of the furnished tenancy. The tenant had noticed a water leak. The tenant sought instructions from the landlord. The landlord said that he advised the tenant to close the water taps on the washing machine. The tenant replied by e-mail that he was not sure how to close off the taps. The landlord asked for photos from the tenant of taps so that the landlord could provide appropriate instructions. The landlord told the tenant to close the tap.
Approximately 30 minutes later, the tenant informed the landlord by email that he had been able to turn the tap off and that the leak had stopped. These events occurred on a Saturday evening. The landlord’s contractor attended on the following Monday and repaired the leak. The leak has caused damage to the skirting boards and surrounds. The landlord says that if the tap had been closed when the tenant first saw the leak, the damage would have been limited.
The tenant said that he discovered the leak on Saturday 13 April 2024. He initially attempted to contact the landlord by telephone to inform the landlord of the leak. He tried unsuccessfully on three separate occasions to contact the landlord. He then sent an e-mail to the landlord. The tenant said that he initially looked for the taps to turn off the machine. He couldn't work out where the appropriate taps were. Approximately one hour after discovering the leak, the tenant was able to turn the taps off. The tenant could not say how long the washing machine taps had been leaking for, prior to him discovering the leak.
The tenant said he did not wish to carry out any repairs to the washing machine as he did not know how the plumbing worked and did not wish to cause further damage. He said he was not comfortable working on the pipes.
Section 40(1)(d) RTA provides that a tenant must notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or the need for any repairs. The section does not require the tenant to carry out the repairs.
I am satisfied, on the evidence presented by the tenant, that the tenant has, as soon as possible after discovering the leak, made attempts to contact the landlord. The landlord had been outside New Zealand for more than 21 consecutive days without appointing an agent. Section 16A RTA requires a landlord to do so in those circumstances. Had an agent being appointed, the agent would no doubt, have been able to attend to the repairs promptly.
Neither party was able to give evidence on the amount of time that the washing machine had been leaking, prior to the tenant making that discovery.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant has breached his obligation to the landlord under s. 40(1)(d) RTA. The landlord’s application is dismissed. The tenants’ bond is to be released.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has been wholly successful in this hearing and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5122413 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5122413 — 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