Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5304018 — Leaks
Decided 29 Oct 2025 · Published 29 Oct 2025 · Application 5304018
- Leaks
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
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 tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $402.82 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $402.82 [The tenant/s]: $2,077.18
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has sought to claim a plumbing invoice totalling $1,903.12 from the tenant and the tenant has filed a claim disputing this amount. Background
- The tenancy commenced in May 2024. At the commencement of the tenancy, and after a few days, the tenant experienced leaking behind the toilet when showering. The landlord arranged for repairs, and during this time the rent was reduced, and the tenant used the facilities in the neighbouring apartment.
- The repair works took approximately on month, however, after this, the tenant advises that the plumbing continued to have issues, including gurgling and slow drainage, and eventually complete blockage.
- The tenant advised the landlord who arranged for a plumber to visit the property however they had advised that there was nothing they could do at the time. The tenant advises that there were no issues for around a month, until they started again.
- The tenant then received an invoice for the plumbing work, however, disputes this amount due to there being issues from the commencement of the tenancy. Although the invoice states that the blockage was caused by excessive toilet paper use, he says that he was the sole occupant and there was only normal use and that the fact that he experienced issues from the commencement of the tenancy shows that the system had faults.
- The landlord relies on the advice from the plumber who states on the invoice that after carrying out CCTV investigations, they found a “full pipe blockage, pushed out with camera, line is now flowing”. In reliance of this, they have determined that the cost is the tenants to pay.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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 claims for the plumbing invoice of $1,093.12 on the basis that the plumbers report on the invoice states that it was caused by a full pipe blockage of toilet paper.
- Although the tenant disputes that he caused the blockage as he only used the toilet for normal usage, the only expert opinion I have is from the landlord’s plumber. Accordingly, I must find that that the issue was caused by a toilet paper blockage. There is nothing to suggest that the system or pipes were faulty themselves.
- Therefore, I find that the tenant is liable to pay the cost to rectify the issues. However, a portion of the invoice is for CCTV footage investigations, and I consider that this is not the responsibility of the tenant. The landlord benefitted from this, as it determined that there were no broader systemic issues. I have reduced the amount awarded by this portion of the invoice.
- The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Toilet block. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved. Other matters
- The tenancy has now ended. There was an overpayment of rent of $320.00 by the tenant, and this has now also been reimbursed in this order.
- Both parties sought name suppression. As both parties have had some level of success, I have awarded name suppression to both parties. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 29 October 2025