What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5268741 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 5268741?

Property Damage: $2,640.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5268741?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12406887-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5268741 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 5268741?

Property Damage: $2,640.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5268741?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268741?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12406887-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5268741 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5268741 — net $2,640.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$2,640.00	Repairs
Net award	$2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,640.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Nid Renters Limited $2,640.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
In November 2025, a flooding incident occurred in the tenant’s unit, which caused water damage to both that unit and the unit below. The source of the flooding was a bidet attachment that had been installed in or around October– November 2024 by the Tenant with the consent of the Landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises 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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA 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) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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) RTA.
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.
The landlord submits that the flooding was caused by an improperly installed bidet and the Tenant should be liable for the charge of $9844.00 to repair the damage to the unit. The body corporate charged the landlord $9844.00. The Landlord submitted there was no evidence of the installation being carried out by a certified or licensed plumber, the installation lacked the required high-risk backflow prevention device and it did not meet plumbing regulations. The damage was therefore not covered by building insurance. The Landlord submitted a flooding report, plumbing report, photographs of the damage and the Body Corp on charge in support of their claim.
The tenant accepts that the flooding originated from the pipe connecting the bidet to the toilet. She states that the breakage was not intentional and that the water leak was internal and not immediately visible. She asserts that she was unaware that installing a bidet required a licensed professional or any specific certification or technical compliance. The plumber was referred to her by a friend and she believed he was qualified, particularly as he had done similar work in her friends home that appeared to have no issues. She states that she paid the plumber by bank transfer and has made repeated attempts to contact him since the incident, but he has since blocked her and has not taken responsibility. The tenant argues that she acted in good faith and carried out what she believed to be appropriate due diligence. She maintains that the delay in issuing the invoice, which was not received until April 2025, raises concerns about the timeline and scope of the claim. She does not deny that she bears some responsibility but contends that it would be unfair to hold her fully liable for the entire cost, particularly given her lack of knowledge and the plumber's failure to meet professional standards.
A support person for the tenant submitted that it would be disproportionate to require the tenant to pay the full amount, especially if there was no intent and the tenant genuinely believed the work was being done properly. He further raised the possibility that the damage could have been caused or exacerbated by structural factors unrelated to the tenant’s actions. There was no evidence of the structural factors or evidence from a tradesperson to confirm this statement.
In considering the evidence, I find that the tenant acted carelessly in arranging for the installation of the bidet without taking reasonable steps to confirm the plumber’s qualifications or the quality of his work. The tenant admitted she did not know whether the individual was licensed, and given that the installation involved a modification to a property she did not own, she ought to have made appropriate inquiries. In light of this, I find the tenant acted carelessly and is liable to the equivalent of four weeks’ rent for careless damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Exemplary damages
The Landlord has claimed exemplary damages because the Tenant installed the bidet which caused damage to the unit.
Exemplary damages can only be ordered for breaches that are specifically listed as “unlawful acts” in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Section 109 RTA. The Landlord must also prove that the Tenants intended to commit the unlawful act.
In considering the evidence, I note that the landlord failed to specify which unlawful act they allege the tenant committed. This is required if they seek to claim exemplary damages. Additionally, I find the Landlord provided no credible evidence to establish this was a deliberate or unlawful act. I accept the Tenant was trying to install a fully functioning bidet for her comfort and there was no intention to cause the subsequent damage.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed,
Section 95A(1) states “the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case”.
As the landlord has not substantially succeeded with the claim the Landlord shall pay their own filing fee and name suppression is not granted to the Landlord. As the Tenant has substantially succeeded in their defence of the claims, name suppression is granted to the Tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5268741 — net $2,640.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$2,640.00	Repairs
Net award	$2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,640.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Nid Renters Limited $2,640.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
In November 2025, a flooding incident occurred in the tenant’s unit, which caused water damage to both that unit and the unit below. The source of the flooding was a bidet attachment that had been installed in or around October– November 2024 by the Tenant with the consent of the Landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises 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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA 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) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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) RTA.
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.
The landlord submits that the flooding was caused by an improperly installed bidet and the Tenant should be liable for the charge of $9844.00 to repair the damage to the unit. The body corporate charged the landlord $9844.00. The Landlord submitted there was no evidence of the installation being carried out by a certified or licensed plumber, the installation lacked the required high-risk backflow prevention device and it did not meet plumbing regulations. The damage was therefore not covered by building insurance. The Landlord submitted a flooding report, plumbing report, photographs of the damage and the Body Corp on charge in support of their claim.
The tenant accepts that the flooding originated from the pipe connecting the bidet to the toilet. She states that the breakage was not intentional and that the water leak was internal and not immediately visible. She asserts that she was unaware that installing a bidet required a licensed professional or any specific certification or technical compliance. The plumber was referred to her by a friend and she believed he was qualified, particularly as he had done similar work in her friends home that appeared to have no issues. She states that she paid the plumber by bank transfer and has made repeated attempts to contact him since the incident, but he has since blocked her and has not taken responsibility. The tenant argues that she acted in good faith and carried out what she believed to be appropriate due diligence. She maintains that the delay in issuing the invoice, which was not received until April 2025, raises concerns about the timeline and scope of the claim. She does not deny that she bears some responsibility but contends that it would be unfair to hold her fully liable for the entire cost, particularly given her lack of knowledge and the plumber's failure to meet professional standards.
A support person for the tenant submitted that it would be disproportionate to require the tenant to pay the full amount, especially if there was no intent and the tenant genuinely believed the work was being done properly. He further raised the possibility that the damage could have been caused or exacerbated by structural factors unrelated to the tenant’s actions. There was no evidence of the structural factors or evidence from a tradesperson to confirm this statement.
In considering the evidence, I find that the tenant acted carelessly in arranging for the installation of the bidet without taking reasonable steps to confirm the plumber’s qualifications or the quality of his work. The tenant admitted she did not know whether the individual was licensed, and given that the installation involved a modification to a property she did not own, she ought to have made appropriate inquiries. In light of this, I find the tenant acted carelessly and is liable to the equivalent of four weeks’ rent for careless damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Exemplary damages
The Landlord has claimed exemplary damages because the Tenant installed the bidet which caused damage to the unit.
Exemplary damages can only be ordered for breaches that are specifically listed as “unlawful acts” in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Section 109 RTA. The Landlord must also prove that the Tenants intended to commit the unlawful act.
In considering the evidence, I note that the landlord failed to specify which unlawful act they allege the tenant committed. This is required if they seek to claim exemplary damages. Additionally, I find the Landlord provided no credible evidence to establish this was a deliberate or unlawful act. I accept the Tenant was trying to install a fully functioning bidet for her comfort and there was no intention to cause the subsequent damage.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed,
Section 95A(1) states “the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case”.
As the landlord has not substantially succeeded with the claim the Landlord shall pay their own filing fee and name suppression is not granted to the Landlord. As the Tenant has substantially succeeded in their defence of the claims, name suppression is granted to the Tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268741 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268741 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions