What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5176691 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 5176691?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176691?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11949758-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5176691 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 5176691?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176691?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11949758-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5176691 — Leaks

Order

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

Reasons

[ Property Managers] appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 29 August 2022 and is periodic. The tenant resides at the property with their seven children, whose ages range from 6 to 19.
On 06 March 2025, the landlord filed a claim seeking termination of the tenancy for failing to remedy a 14-day breach notice and compensation for damage. During the hearing, the landlord advised that subsequent to the application, on 23 April 2025, the tenant gave 21 days notice to terminate the tenancy on 14 May 2025. This was confirmed by the tenant. Despite the tenancy ending shortly, the landlord advised they wished to proceed with their claim for termination and possession.
The landlord claims that the tenant: a. Failed to remedy a 14-day breach notice that they cease using or allowing the property to be used for consuming methamphetamine, and decontaminate the property (Termination), b. Is responsible the following damage: i. Blocked toilet ($128.29), ii. Broken kitchen window ($402.50), iii. Blocked drains in the kitchen and laundry ($264.50), iv. Window latches (($180.00), v. A flood in an upstairs bathroom ($ 304.75 + $684.25)
In brackets next to the claims is the compensation sought.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).
The claim for window latches was withdrawn by the landlord. Unlawful use of the property and termination
Composite pre tenancy testing for the presence of methamphetamine was conducted on 17 August 2022. The samples taken returned a nil composite result (less than 0.02 μg/100cm2 (“μg”)).
On 17 October 2024, the landlord conducted further testing. The samples were taken by [ Property Manager] who states she has completed a New Zealand standard approved course in methamphetamine screening and sampling.
Eleven sites were sampled. These included the heat pump in the lounge (0.56 ug), the extractor fan in the kitchen (12.1 ug), door bedroom one (5.45ug), door to bathroom (5.49ug), and the door to bedroom two (8.58 ug).
The details of the sites sampled on 17 August 2022 were not recorded, and there is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that the sites tested on 17 October 2024, where the same or proximate to those tested previously. As a result, no accurate comparison can be made between the two sets of results.
Despite there being insufficient evidence that the tenant was responsible for the contamination, on 22 October 2024, the landlord issued the tenant with a 14-day breach notice requiring them to cease using or allowing the property to be used for an unlawful purpose and to decontaminate the affected areas. The test results were sent to the tenant with the notice, along with cleaning products including sugar soap, wipes, sponges, and a mop. However, photographs of the sites the landlord wanted cleaning were not provided. Instead, it appears the landlord verbally advised the tenant of the areas to be cleaned.
The tenant stated they cleaned the property as directed, although it is unclear what areas were cleaned or when the cleaning took place.
The same sites were again tested on 17 November 2024, 04 December 2024, 13 January 2025, and 12 February 2025. The results are set out in the table below. Location 17/10/2417/11/2404/12/2413/01/2512/02/25 Lounge heat pump
5623.40.509.310.65 Extractor fan kitchen
12.440.480.401.29 Door bedroom 1
451.441.432.150.41 Door bedroom 1
491.962.120.440.62 Light switch hallway
770.370.060.050.05 Door bedroom 2
582.231.750.370.30 Door bedroom 3
413.111.240.320.02 Door bedroom 4
483.282.52.0380.33 Door bedroom 2
674.382.454.241.19 Laundry light switch
931.191.411.131.32 Door bedroom 5
202.082.241.501.08 Decision
Determining whether a tenant is liable for contamination will involve making a before and after comparison.
The landlord acknowledges that while the testing conducted on 17 October 2024 could not determine the tenant’s liability for the contamination, it nonetheless provided a base line for future testing.
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for any increases in the readings.
As there was insufficient evidence to prove that the tenant was responsible for the contamination, it would have been more prudent for the landlord to have completed the cleaning themselves. This would have likely resulted in a more accurate base line. Failing to do so has cast doubt over the accuracy of any subsequent test results. Further, the subsequent readings fluctuate up and down.
In this case, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the contamination has more likely than not occurred during the tenancy. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that the tenant failed to remedy the 14-day breach notice. The claim is dismissed. Damage
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a) and 49B of the Act.
Under section 41 of the Act, tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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 dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
Awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Blocked toilet
Apart from an invoice for $128.29 to clear two blocked toilets dated 11 October 2022; no other evidence has been provided. On its own, the invoice is insufficient. The claim is dismissed. Broken kitchen window
The tenant states that around July 2024, they had agreed to allow a former associate to temporally reside at the property while on bail. The tenant states that the bail ended, but despite being asked to leave the person never moved out. The tenant states that gang members had threatened them if they involved police. The tenant was fearful of reprisals and states they had been the victim of burglaries and property damage.
It appears the landlord first became aware of the tenant’s predicament sometime in January 2025. The tenant states from around the beginning of January 2025, they began residing away from the property, returning only briefly to clean and check on it. However, the tenant states that the person still had a key, there had been another break in, and they were unsure who had been at the property.
On 23 April 2025, the tenant gave 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy.
There is no dispute that a window in the kitchen was damaged during the tenancy. This issue is whether the tenant is responsible for the damage. The tenant states that on 19 July 2024, they returned to find the window smashed. They removed the broken glass and placed a mirror over the missing window. The tenant then emailed the landlord advising them of the damage. The window overlooks a shared driveway accessed by occupants of neighbouring properties. The tenant states that similar acts of vandalism had occurred previously.
On the evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the damage. The claim is dismissed. Blocked drains in the kitchen and laundry
The landlord has produced an invoice dated 21 August 2024, for work completed on 16 August 2024, to clear blocked drains in the kitchen and laundry. The kitchen drain was reportedly blocked by ice block sticks and a piece of plastic, the laundry drain blocked by lint, paint brushes, and other debris.
The tenant states that other occupants resided at the property prior to their tenancy, and it cannot be ruled out that there had already been debris blocking the drain, contributing to the blockages.
The onus is on the landlord to establish that the tenant’s act or omission was the sole cause of the blockage. In this case, I cannot rule out the possibility of pre-existing partial blockage in both drains. The claim is dismissed. Flood in an upstairs bathroom.
On 18 October 2024, the tenant advised the landlord of a flood in the upstairs bathroom. The tenant was not home at the time. According to the invoice, the plumber recorded that when they arrived a young woman, who identified themselves as the tenant’s cousin, reported they had stayed overnight and discovered the sink overflowing in the morning. The plumbers invoice states the sink drain was blocked with hair, and the vanity showed signs of swelling. However, they state there was no obvious fault with the plumbing which would have caused flooding and concluded that someone had likely left the tap on, resulting in a flood. The claim is for the plumbers call out and costs of drying the walls and carpet in the rooms below.
The tenant confirmed the identity of the young woman but denied she had stayed the night, stating that they had instead arrived early that morning and discovered the flood.
The onus is on the landlord to establish more likely than not the tenant, or someone at the property with the tenant’s permission, was responsible for the act or omission causing the flood.
In this case reliance is placed upon the statement reportedly made by the young woman to the plumber. The tenant disputes the accuracy of that statement. Although the drain was blocked, it has not been cited as a possible cause of the flooding. In the absence of photographic evidence, it is not possible to make an objective assessment of whether or not, and if so, the extent the blockage may have been a factor. As with the blocked drains in the kitchen and laundry, I cannot rule out the possibility of a pre-existing condition contributing to the flooding. The claim is dismissed. Name suppression.
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The landlord is a social housing provider offering affordable rental accommodation to vulnerable people. The tenant falls within that category.
While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the social housing provider. Upon careful consideration, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in section 95A (4). The Tribunal also orders suppression of the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176691 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176691 — 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