What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5295240 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant]’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5295240?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5295240?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5295240?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12271541-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5295240 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant]’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5295240?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5295240?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5295240?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12271541-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit 13C, 30 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5295240 — Mould & damp

Order

[The tenant]’s name and identifying details must not be published.
[The tenant] is not liable for the landlord’s losses incurred due to the fire sprinklers going off in the unit on 13 April 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Seth Wotherspoon from the Auckland University of Technology Student Association supported the tenant.
Nigel Ng and Eddy Yip attended for the landlord.
Both parties’ claims concern whether the tenant is liable to contribute to the landlord’s loss of $5,000.00, which is the excess the landlord had to its pay its insurer for the cost of remediating water damage after the tenant accidentally set off the unit’s fire sprinklers. The parties’ cases
The tenant explains what occurred on 13 April 2025 as follows: I was airing my blankets and clothes inside my room because they had developed mould due to dampness. The ceiling in my room is relatively low, and the window where I was hanging the blanket is positioned close to the sprinkler head. While lifting the blanket vertically to hang it over the window to air out, it accidentally brushed against the sprinkler head, triggering the sprinkler system to discharge black water. ... The landlord’s insurance loss adjuster states that this was negligence on my part. However, I contend this was a genuine accident that could happen to any reasonable person under similar circumstances.
The landlord submitted an email from the insurer’s cost adjuster in which the cost adjuster opines the tenant’s actions were negligent: 1 The event has occurred because of the tenants negligent actions The event was foreseeable and avoidable. When the tenant has hung clothing or blankets to air or dry, he has not taken care to avoid contact with the sprinkler head. As a result of impact with the sprinkler head, it has been activated and damage caused. Had the tenant taken due care the event could have been avoided. A reasonable person (the test of negligence) would have made sure his actions when airing bedding or clothing would not impact the sprinklerhead and would maintain a suitable distance from the sprinkler head to make sure impact did not occur. Is the tenant liable for the landlord’s loss? Legal principles
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. 2
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. 3 In this case the lesser amount is four weeks’ rent, which amounts to $1,040.00.
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. 4
It is not alleged that the tenant intentionally set the sprinklers off – it is accepted that he did so accidentally when moving his bedding from the bed to a high window to air it. 1 Email to the landlord dated 25 June 2025. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 3 RTA s 49B(3)(a). 4 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Rather the issue is whether he did so carelessly. The test for carelessness in this context is: 5 Was the tenant exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances.
In the United Kingdom, carelessness has been explained as follows: 6 Its usual meaning is the lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought... Also heedless or thoughtless, and can cover a situation of inadvertent lack of care. The standard of care is the standard of an ordinary careful person. An ordinary careful person is not expected to take precautions against every foreseeable risk, but only against those risks that are reasonably likely to happen. Discussion
The relevant damage was more than fair wear and tear and it occurred during the tenancy.
It is incumbent on the tenant to prove that he was not careless in causing the damage.
The tenant gave evidence before me as to how the damage had occurred. He was performing the mundane task of moving his bedroom to the unit’s window, so that he could hang the bedding up on a higher part of the window’s frame to air it. The tenant demonstrated that when he moved the bedding towards the upper part of the window frame he was holding the bedding up with his hands at about chest level.
I have considered the alternative possibility that the tenant’s account was disingenuous and perhaps another mechanism - such as hanging a jacket from a sprinkler – activated the sprinklers. I queried the tenant about how credible his narrative was. The unit is tiny. It was built as student accommodation. The unit’s ceiling height is probably about 2.4m. The height the tenant demonstrated his hands to be at when holding the bedding was only about 1.5m. That would mean that the bundle of bedding would have had to have been about 90cm high, or perhaps that some of it flicked up as the tenant lifted it towards the window..
The tenant says he did not even realise the bedding had touched the sprinkler. He did not for instance feel any tug that indicated the bedding had got caught in the sprinkler head. He only worked out that the bedding must have touched the sprinkler head a moment later when the sprinkler squirted black water all over him and the unit.
On reflection, I have decided it is feasible that some bedding touched the sprinkler as the tenant hoisted it towards the window. The tenant gave the same explanation immediately after the incident. He could have denied doing anything at all to the sprinklers rather than giving an explanation that implicated himself (even if the explanation has an exculpatory element).
Significantly, the landlord had not given the tenant any warning against touching the sprinklers. 5 David Grinlinton Residential Tenancies – The Law and Practice (4 th Edition, LexisNexis, Wellington, 2012) at 145. 6 Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
It is surprising that the sprinklers were activated by being inadvertently brushed in the way the tenant described. The phrase, “There go I but for the grace of God” comes to mind. It is possible that the sprinkler needed maintenance or repair. Surely, the sprinkler should have been less susceptible to contact than in this case. What the tenant says he did is of a completely different character to, say, hanging an item of clothing on the sprinkler - which would clearly have been careless.
Having considered alternative theories, I accept the tenant’s narrative. It is feasible. The tenant has remained consistent in his version of events from the beginning. No alternative theory was advanced by the landlord and the landlord did not challenge the tenant’s account in cross-examination. His account was therefore uncontroverted. I find the facts as asserted by the tenant proven on the balance of probabilities.
Having accepted his account, I find that the tenant’s actions were not careless. Who would have thought that simply by attempting to put some bedding over a window opening that the bedding would touch the sprinkler and that slight contact would cause the sprinkler to activate? In my view the tenant exercised the degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would have exercised in those circumstances.
Also considering the United Kingdom judgment’s explanation: an ordinary careful person is not expected to take precautions against every foreseeable risk, but only against those risks that are reasonably likely to happen. The fire sprinkler was not reasonably likely to activate from the mundane task of hanging the bedding from the nearby window. Conclusion
I am satisfied on the balance of the probabilities that the tenant’s actions in setting off the sprinkler were not careless.
It follows the tenant is not liable to contribute towards the landlord’s loss of having to pay $5,000.00 as a result of the sprinkler damage.

Order

[The tenant]’s name and identifying details must not be published.
[The tenant] is not liable for the landlord’s losses incurred due to the fire sprinklers going off in the unit on 13 April 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Seth Wotherspoon from the Auckland University of Technology Student Association supported the tenant.
Nigel Ng and Eddy Yip attended for the landlord.
Both parties’ claims concern whether the tenant is liable to contribute to the landlord’s loss of $5,000.00, which is the excess the landlord had to its pay its insurer for the cost of remediating water damage after the tenant accidentally set off the unit’s fire sprinklers. The parties’ cases
The tenant explains what occurred on 13 April 2025 as follows: I was airing my blankets and clothes inside my room because they had developed mould due to dampness. The ceiling in my room is relatively low, and the window where I was hanging the blanket is positioned close to the sprinkler head. While lifting the blanket vertically to hang it over the window to air out, it accidentally brushed against the sprinkler head, triggering the sprinkler system to discharge black water. ... The landlord’s insurance loss adjuster states that this was negligence on my part. However, I contend this was a genuine accident that could happen to any reasonable person under similar circumstances.
The landlord submitted an email from the insurer’s cost adjuster in which the cost adjuster opines the tenant’s actions were negligent: 1 The event has occurred because of the tenants negligent actions The event was foreseeable and avoidable. When the tenant has hung clothing or blankets to air or dry, he has not taken care to avoid contact with the sprinkler head. As a result of impact with the sprinkler head, it has been activated and damage caused. Had the tenant taken due care the event could have been avoided. A reasonable person (the test of negligence) would have made sure his actions when airing bedding or clothing would not impact the sprinklerhead and would maintain a suitable distance from the sprinkler head to make sure impact did not occur. Is the tenant liable for the landlord’s loss? Legal principles
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. 2
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. 3 In this case the lesser amount is four weeks’ rent, which amounts to $1,040.00.
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. 4
It is not alleged that the tenant intentionally set the sprinklers off – it is accepted that he did so accidentally when moving his bedding from the bed to a high window to air it. 1 Email to the landlord dated 25 June 2025. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 3 RTA s 49B(3)(a). 4 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Rather the issue is whether he did so carelessly. The test for carelessness in this context is: 5 Was the tenant exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances.
In the United Kingdom, carelessness has been explained as follows: 6 Its usual meaning is the lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought... Also heedless or thoughtless, and can cover a situation of inadvertent lack of care. The standard of care is the standard of an ordinary careful person. An ordinary careful person is not expected to take precautions against every foreseeable risk, but only against those risks that are reasonably likely to happen. Discussion
The relevant damage was more than fair wear and tear and it occurred during the tenancy.
It is incumbent on the tenant to prove that he was not careless in causing the damage.
The tenant gave evidence before me as to how the damage had occurred. He was performing the mundane task of moving his bedroom to the unit’s window, so that he could hang the bedding up on a higher part of the window’s frame to air it. The tenant demonstrated that when he moved the bedding towards the upper part of the window frame he was holding the bedding up with his hands at about chest level.
I have considered the alternative possibility that the tenant’s account was disingenuous and perhaps another mechanism - such as hanging a jacket from a sprinkler – activated the sprinklers. I queried the tenant about how credible his narrative was. The unit is tiny. It was built as student accommodation. The unit’s ceiling height is probably about 2.4m. The height the tenant demonstrated his hands to be at when holding the bedding was only about 1.5m. That would mean that the bundle of bedding would have had to have been about 90cm high, or perhaps that some of it flicked up as the tenant lifted it towards the window..
The tenant says he did not even realise the bedding had touched the sprinkler. He did not for instance feel any tug that indicated the bedding had got caught in the sprinkler head. He only worked out that the bedding must have touched the sprinkler head a moment later when the sprinkler squirted black water all over him and the unit.
On reflection, I have decided it is feasible that some bedding touched the sprinkler as the tenant hoisted it towards the window. The tenant gave the same explanation immediately after the incident. He could have denied doing anything at all to the sprinklers rather than giving an explanation that implicated himself (even if the explanation has an exculpatory element).
Significantly, the landlord had not given the tenant any warning against touching the sprinklers. 5 David Grinlinton Residential Tenancies – The Law and Practice (4 th Edition, LexisNexis, Wellington, 2012) at 145. 6 Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
It is surprising that the sprinklers were activated by being inadvertently brushed in the way the tenant described. The phrase, “There go I but for the grace of God” comes to mind. It is possible that the sprinkler needed maintenance or repair. Surely, the sprinkler should have been less susceptible to contact than in this case. What the tenant says he did is of a completely different character to, say, hanging an item of clothing on the sprinkler - which would clearly have been careless.
Having considered alternative theories, I accept the tenant’s narrative. It is feasible. The tenant has remained consistent in his version of events from the beginning. No alternative theory was advanced by the landlord and the landlord did not challenge the tenant’s account in cross-examination. His account was therefore uncontroverted. I find the facts as asserted by the tenant proven on the balance of probabilities.
Having accepted his account, I find that the tenant’s actions were not careless. Who would have thought that simply by attempting to put some bedding over a window opening that the bedding would touch the sprinkler and that slight contact would cause the sprinkler to activate? In my view the tenant exercised the degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would have exercised in those circumstances.
Also considering the United Kingdom judgment’s explanation: an ordinary careful person is not expected to take precautions against every foreseeable risk, but only against those risks that are reasonably likely to happen. The fire sprinkler was not reasonably likely to activate from the mundane task of hanging the bedding from the nearby window. Conclusion
I am satisfied on the balance of the probabilities that the tenant’s actions in setting off the sprinkler were not careless.
It follows the tenant is not liable to contribute towards the landlord’s loss of having to pay $5,000.00 as a result of the sprinkler damage.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5295240 — Mould & damp at Unit 13C, 30 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5295240 — Mould & damp at Unit 13C, 30 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010,

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