What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5219354 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 5219354?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5219354?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5219354?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11972806-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5219354 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 5219354?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5219354?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5219354?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11972806-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5219354 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5219354 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Tribunal declares that the tenants are not liable for the plumber’s invoice dated 7 November 2024.( s.78(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Landed Property Management Ltd As Agent For Ennismore Road Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 11 June 2025.
The tenants seek a declaration from the Tribunal as to the liability of the tenants for a plumbers invoice and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Section 78(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that the Tribunal may make an order in the nature of a declaration as to the rights and obligations of any party.
The tenancy commenced on 15 December 2023 and is ongoing.
The tenants have received an invoice from the landlord for plumbing work carried out at the tenanted premises. The work was required as a result of an issue with the waste water pump at the front of the premises. The system, when it is blocked or suffers a failure, emits a warning siren. That requires the tenants to turn the pump off at the switchboard. When this occurs, the tenants water usage is restricted.
The tenants say that they first experienced this problem soon after the commencement of the tenancy. They were told that the fault on this occasion was caused as a result of a sanitary item being placed into the wastewater system. As they had only just commenced their tenancy at this point, the landlord considered that it was most likely a problem caused by the previous tenants.
On 29 October 2014, the waste water system became blocked again and the warning siren sounded. The tenants turned the pump off at the switchboard. The landlord was advised of the problem. A plumber was contacted and arrived at the premises on the same day. The tenants were present whilst the plumber carried out his investigation. The plumber said that hair had become wrapped around the pump propeller shaft. The tenants say that the plumber said that the pump propeller should be able to “handle hair” and “chop up the chunks of hair.”
There is a shower on both the bottom floor and upper floor of the premises. The tenants said that the shower on the bottom floor has always had a cover over the drain to prevent larger debris entering the wastewater system. The tenant said that they had installed a cover over the drain to the upper floor shower after the incident in October 2024.
The tenants said that they had taken all reasonable precautions to stop excessive hair entering the waste water system. It was not realistic to expect that no hair would go into the waste water system and that the issue was with the performance of the pump.
The landlord said that she had taken over management of these premises in October 2024. She advised the tenants that if a plumber were called and the cause of the problem was waste that was not dissolvable (e.g. sanitary items, wipes or hair) the cost of the plumber would be passed on to the tenants. She said that the plumber had informed the landlord that the cause of the issue on this occassion was hair becoming wrapped around the pump preventing it from working correctly.
The landlord says that the photos provided following the inspection, show a hair trap cover in the downstairs shower only. The latest inspection in April 2025 shows that a hair trip has been installed in both bathrooms, the most recent one presumably by the tenants.
The tenants, in turn, claim that the damage is fair wear and tear, which is an exception to tenant liability (see section 49A(2) RTA). Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. (See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403).
Under section 49B (8)(a)(i) RTA, the onus is on the landlord to establish that the damage is not fair wear and tear. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Fair wear and tear includes damage during ordinary use. The tenants have used the showers in an ordinary manner. That some hair would enter the waste water system is inevitable. I consider that the introduction of hair (being human waste) can be distinguished from those cases where foreign matter such as wipes have entered the system. The burden of proof where a tenant claims that damage has been caused by fair wear and tear is on the landlord. They must prove that it was more likely than not that fair wear and tear was not the cause of the damage. Having reviewed the evidence, I do not consider that the landlord has proven that to the required standard.
The Tribunal declares that the tenants are not liable for the plumber’s invoice dated 7 November 2024.
As Jamela Ferguson, Tainaa Perry, Hannah Taniwha, and Jason Spiedell have wholly succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. The tenants have been wholly successful in this matter in suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the landlord’s application for name suppression as dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5219354 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Tribunal declares that the tenants are not liable for the plumber’s invoice dated 7 November 2024.( s.78(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Landed Property Management Ltd As Agent For Ennismore Road Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 11 June 2025.
The tenants seek a declaration from the Tribunal as to the liability of the tenants for a plumbers invoice and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Section 78(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that the Tribunal may make an order in the nature of a declaration as to the rights and obligations of any party.
The tenancy commenced on 15 December 2023 and is ongoing.
The tenants have received an invoice from the landlord for plumbing work carried out at the tenanted premises. The work was required as a result of an issue with the waste water pump at the front of the premises. The system, when it is blocked or suffers a failure, emits a warning siren. That requires the tenants to turn the pump off at the switchboard. When this occurs, the tenants water usage is restricted.
The tenants say that they first experienced this problem soon after the commencement of the tenancy. They were told that the fault on this occasion was caused as a result of a sanitary item being placed into the wastewater system. As they had only just commenced their tenancy at this point, the landlord considered that it was most likely a problem caused by the previous tenants.
On 29 October 2014, the waste water system became blocked again and the warning siren sounded. The tenants turned the pump off at the switchboard. The landlord was advised of the problem. A plumber was contacted and arrived at the premises on the same day. The tenants were present whilst the plumber carried out his investigation. The plumber said that hair had become wrapped around the pump propeller shaft. The tenants say that the plumber said that the pump propeller should be able to “handle hair” and “chop up the chunks of hair.”
There is a shower on both the bottom floor and upper floor of the premises. The tenants said that the shower on the bottom floor has always had a cover over the drain to prevent larger debris entering the wastewater system. The tenant said that they had installed a cover over the drain to the upper floor shower after the incident in October 2024.
The tenants said that they had taken all reasonable precautions to stop excessive hair entering the waste water system. It was not realistic to expect that no hair would go into the waste water system and that the issue was with the performance of the pump.
The landlord said that she had taken over management of these premises in October 2024. She advised the tenants that if a plumber were called and the cause of the problem was waste that was not dissolvable (e.g. sanitary items, wipes or hair) the cost of the plumber would be passed on to the tenants. She said that the plumber had informed the landlord that the cause of the issue on this occassion was hair becoming wrapped around the pump preventing it from working correctly.
The landlord says that the photos provided following the inspection, show a hair trap cover in the downstairs shower only. The latest inspection in April 2025 shows that a hair trip has been installed in both bathrooms, the most recent one presumably by the tenants.
The tenants, in turn, claim that the damage is fair wear and tear, which is an exception to tenant liability (see section 49A(2) RTA). Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. (See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403).
Under section 49B (8)(a)(i) RTA, the onus is on the landlord to establish that the damage is not fair wear and tear. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Fair wear and tear includes damage during ordinary use. The tenants have used the showers in an ordinary manner. That some hair would enter the waste water system is inevitable. I consider that the introduction of hair (being human waste) can be distinguished from those cases where foreign matter such as wipes have entered the system. The burden of proof where a tenant claims that damage has been caused by fair wear and tear is on the landlord. They must prove that it was more likely than not that fair wear and tear was not the cause of the damage. Having reviewed the evidence, I do not consider that the landlord has proven that to the required standard.
The Tribunal declares that the tenants are not liable for the plumber’s invoice dated 7 November 2024.
As Jamela Ferguson, Tainaa Perry, Hannah Taniwha, and Jason Spiedell have wholly succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. The tenants have been wholly successful in this matter in suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the landlord’s application for name suppression as dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5219354 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5219354 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions