What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5257181 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5257181?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257181?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12305058-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5257181 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5257181?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257181?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12305058-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 301, 64 Great South Road, Epsom, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5257181 — Leaks

Order

The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Mr Kaun, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. Mr Ryan, one of the tenants, appeared. Unsuccessful attempts were made to join Mr Yi Su, tenant, and Xuelan Han, guarantor, to the hearing. The Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Yi Su and Xuelan Han were properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
The tenancy commenced on 20 September 2024 with the fixed term due to expire on 20 September 2025.
On 16 May 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal. The landlord seeks an order from the Tribunal requiring the tenants to pay an outstanding plumbing invoice for the repair of a washing machine leak.
At the commencement of the hearing Mr Ryan sought an adjournment. He stated he had failed to prepare for the hearing and had been expecting Mr Su to appear for the tenants. The application for adjournment was declined. The tenants were notified of the hearing date on 22 July 2025 and had been provided with sufficient time to prepare. History of the washing machine leak
At the commencement of the tenancy Mr Su obtained permission from the landlord to install his new washing machine in the property. The landlord said he advised the tenants to have a plumber help with the installation to ensure if was done correctly. The tenants chose not to follow his advice and installed it themselves.
Mr Ryan told the Tribunal that in early November they noticed the washing machine was leaking. He said Mr Yi asked the building manager (who does not appear to be an agent of the landlord for the purpose of the tenancy) to arrange for a plumber to attend the property to have it fixed.
On 13 November 2024, the building manager arranged for plumber one to attend the property. The leak was found to be coming from a hole in the washing machine hose which was replaced and the water from the flooded bathroom and bedroom was vacuumed up. No damage occurred. The invoice states the plumber advised the tenants to use a dehumidifier and keep the windows open to help dry out the property.
The landlord was unaware of this call out.
On 20 November 2024, the landlord completed a routine inspection of the property and noticed the washing machine was leaking. The landlord said he raised this issue with the tenants and asked them to arrange for a plumber to investigate and repair the leak. The tenants failed to respond to the landlord’s request to have the leaking washing machine repaired.
On 28 November 2024, the landlord arranged for their plumber (“plumber two”) to visit the property and repair the leak. Plumber two’s invoice (dated that same day) records the washing machine hose was very loose and leaking. The hose was reinstalled and tested for leaks. The invoice for the work undertaken totalled $167.90 which the tenant’s paid.
Today the landlord seeks an order from the Tribunal requiring the tenants to pay the outstanding invoice from plumber one which has been sent too and is in the name of the landlord. The invoice was received for the first time on 12 December 2024 which was one month after the first call out.
The landlord’s position is they are not liable for the repair costs of the washing machine as it is not a chattel of the property. In addition, the contract for repairs was between the tenants and plumber one, facilitated by the building manager, therefore the tenants are liable for the invoiced costs.
The tenant’s position is that they should not have to pay plumber one’s outstanding invoice. Their position is that the quality of the workmanship was poor and therefore they should not be liable for the debt. Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal is outlined in section 77 of the Act. It states: The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.
The Orders of the Tribunal are set out in section 78 of the Act. Decision and analysis
In this case the tenant disputes the quality of the workmanship completed by Plumber one which has resulted in the invoice not being paid. The attendance of plumber one at the property was arranged by the building manager who is not an agent of the Landlord at the request of Mr Su. The washing machine is the property of Mr Su and is not a chattel of the landlord. It is unclear what, if any contractual relationship exists between the landlord and plumber one although, the Tribunal notes the invoice, issued one month after the work was completed, is issued in the name of the landlord.
This dispute is not a dispute between the landlord and tenant. The landlord has become caught in the dispute between the tenants and plumber one. Disputes such as these fall outside the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
Given the lack of jurisdiction the claim is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Mr Kaun, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. Mr Ryan, one of the tenants, appeared. Unsuccessful attempts were made to join Mr Yi Su, tenant, and Xuelan Han, guarantor, to the hearing. The Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Yi Su and Xuelan Han were properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
The tenancy commenced on 20 September 2024 with the fixed term due to expire on 20 September 2025.
On 16 May 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal. The landlord seeks an order from the Tribunal requiring the tenants to pay an outstanding plumbing invoice for the repair of a washing machine leak.
At the commencement of the hearing Mr Ryan sought an adjournment. He stated he had failed to prepare for the hearing and had been expecting Mr Su to appear for the tenants. The application for adjournment was declined. The tenants were notified of the hearing date on 22 July 2025 and had been provided with sufficient time to prepare. History of the washing machine leak
At the commencement of the tenancy Mr Su obtained permission from the landlord to install his new washing machine in the property. The landlord said he advised the tenants to have a plumber help with the installation to ensure if was done correctly. The tenants chose not to follow his advice and installed it themselves.
Mr Ryan told the Tribunal that in early November they noticed the washing machine was leaking. He said Mr Yi asked the building manager (who does not appear to be an agent of the landlord for the purpose of the tenancy) to arrange for a plumber to attend the property to have it fixed.
On 13 November 2024, the building manager arranged for plumber one to attend the property. The leak was found to be coming from a hole in the washing machine hose which was replaced and the water from the flooded bathroom and bedroom was vacuumed up. No damage occurred. The invoice states the plumber advised the tenants to use a dehumidifier and keep the windows open to help dry out the property.
The landlord was unaware of this call out.
On 20 November 2024, the landlord completed a routine inspection of the property and noticed the washing machine was leaking. The landlord said he raised this issue with the tenants and asked them to arrange for a plumber to investigate and repair the leak. The tenants failed to respond to the landlord’s request to have the leaking washing machine repaired.
On 28 November 2024, the landlord arranged for their plumber (“plumber two”) to visit the property and repair the leak. Plumber two’s invoice (dated that same day) records the washing machine hose was very loose and leaking. The hose was reinstalled and tested for leaks. The invoice for the work undertaken totalled $167.90 which the tenant’s paid.
Today the landlord seeks an order from the Tribunal requiring the tenants to pay the outstanding invoice from plumber one which has been sent too and is in the name of the landlord. The invoice was received for the first time on 12 December 2024 which was one month after the first call out.
The landlord’s position is they are not liable for the repair costs of the washing machine as it is not a chattel of the property. In addition, the contract for repairs was between the tenants and plumber one, facilitated by the building manager, therefore the tenants are liable for the invoiced costs.
The tenant’s position is that they should not have to pay plumber one’s outstanding invoice. Their position is that the quality of the workmanship was poor and therefore they should not be liable for the debt. Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal is outlined in section 77 of the Act. It states: The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.
The Orders of the Tribunal are set out in section 78 of the Act. Decision and analysis
In this case the tenant disputes the quality of the workmanship completed by Plumber one which has resulted in the invoice not being paid. The attendance of plumber one at the property was arranged by the building manager who is not an agent of the Landlord at the request of Mr Su. The washing machine is the property of Mr Su and is not a chattel of the landlord. It is unclear what, if any contractual relationship exists between the landlord and plumber one although, the Tribunal notes the invoice, issued one month after the work was completed, is issued in the name of the landlord.
This dispute is not a dispute between the landlord and tenant. The landlord has become caught in the dispute between the tenants and plumber one. Disputes such as these fall outside the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
Given the lack of jurisdiction the claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257181 — Leaks at Unit/Flat Unit 301, 64 Great South Road, Epsom, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257181 — Leaks at Unit/Flat Unit 301, 64 Great South Road, Epsom, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions