What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5138210 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 5138210?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5138210?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5138210?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12061944-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5138210 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 5138210?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5138210?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5138210?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12061944-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5138210 — State of repair

Reasons

The dispute is about a blocked drain.

The blockage meant that the tenant was unable to use the toilet or shower in the flat for a lengthy period (several months). She used public facilities not far from the flat.

The landlord said that some of the delay was due to the tenant not allowing access or being difficult to contact, but she acknowledged that the repair work could have been completed sooner.

The tenant seeks a refund of rent ($3,000.00).

The landlord seeks the cost of the drainage repair work ($2,000.00).

The drain blocked due to two contributing factors.

The first was that the tenant flushed cat litter down the toilet.

The second was that part of the underground pipework was damaged (crushed). It is likely that the pipe was damaged by heavy equipment working around that part of the property several years ago.

The landlord provided a photograph of the damaged pipe and brought a section of it to the hearing. The pipe is deformed, but not completely shut off or broken.

The damage to the pipe and the cat litter were both “but for” causes of the blockage.

The pipe would not have blocked if [The tenant/s] had not flushed cat litter down the toilet. This is proven by the fact that there were no blockages prior to her tenancy even though the pipe damage happened several years ago.

The cat litter would (most probably) not have blocked the pipe if it was not crushed. This is supported by the fact that the blockage built up in the damaged section of the pipe.

[The tenant/s]’ act of flushing the cat litter was carelessness.

[The landlord/s]’ failure to promptly attend to the blockage was a failure to maintain the premises.

The Tenancy Tribunal is required to “exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants” 1 , and to determine disputes “according to the substantial merits and justice of the case” 2 .

From a legal perspective, the main or primary cause of the blockage was the cat litter, but that does not eliminate the damaged pipe as a contributing “but for” cause.

In my view allocating full responsibility and liability to either the landlord or tenant would be an unjust outcome. Both parties have suffered costs and inconvenience as a result of the incident. Their monetary claims are a similar amount. The landlord has chosen not to pursue claims for cleaning or missing chattels. The tenancy has ended.

Having regard to the substantial merits and justice of the case my finding is that the most appropriate outcome is that both parties bear their own costs and losses, and neither party is liable to pay any amount to the other.

In the interests of bringing this matter to a conclusion without further detriment to either party, I will also grant name suppression to both parties.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The dispute is about a blocked drain.
The blockage meant that the tenant was unable to use the toilet or shower in the flat for a lengthy period (several months). She used public facilities not far from the flat.
The landlord said that some of the delay was due to the tenant not allowing access or being difficult to contact, but she acknowledged that the repair work could have been completed sooner.
The tenant seeks a refund of rent ($3,000.00).
The landlord seeks the cost of the drainage repair work ($2,000.00).
The drain blocked due to two contributing factors.
The first was that the tenant flushed cat litter down the toilet.
The second was that part of the underground pipework was damaged (crushed). It is likely that the pipe was damaged by heavy equipment working around that part of the property several years ago.
The landlord provided a photograph of the damaged pipe and brought a section of it to the hearing. The pipe is deformed, but not completely shut off or broken.
The damage to the pipe and the cat litter were both “but for” causes of the blockage.
The pipe would not have blocked if [The tenant/s] had not flushed cat litter down the toilet. This is proven by the fact that there were no blockages prior to her tenancy even though the pipe damage happened several years ago.
The cat litter would (most probably) not have blocked the pipe if it was not crushed. This is supported by the fact that the blockage built up in the damaged section of the pipe.
[The tenant/s]’ act of flushing the cat litter was carelessness.
[The landlord/s]’ failure to promptly attend to the blockage was a failure to maintain the premises.
The Tenancy Tribunal is required to “exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants” 1 , and to determine disputes “according to the substantial merits and justice of the case” 2 .
From a legal perspective, the main or primary cause of the blockage was the cat litter, but that does not eliminate the damaged pipe as a contributing “but for” cause.
In my view allocating full responsibility and liability to either the landlord or tenant would be an unjust outcome. Both parties have suffered costs and inconvenience as a result of the incident. Their monetary claims are a similar amount. The landlord has chosen not to pursue claims for cleaning or missing chattels. The tenancy has ended.
Having regard to the substantial merits and justice of the case my finding is that the most appropriate outcome is that both parties bear their own costs and losses, and neither party is liable to pay any amount to the other.
In the interests of bringing this matter to a conclusion without further detriment to either party, I will also grant name suppression to both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5138210 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5138210 — State of repair

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