What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5307800 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5307800?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5307800?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5307800?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12656501-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5307800 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5307800?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5307800?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5307800?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12656501-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

220 Warwick Road, Mayfair, Hastings 4122 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5307800 — Mould & damp

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing with Kaye Pratt representing the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims that the tenants failed to report an obvious leak at the premises which the landlord discovered after the tenancy ended. The landlord says the failure to report the leak resulted in significant damage which the landlord had to repair. The landlord seeks refund of the entire bond as a contribution to the repair costs. The tenants deny that the leak was obvious. Burden of proof
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Under section 40(1)(d) RTA, tenants also have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. A tenant may be liable for the repair costs to some extent, if they fail to report a defect or damage that comes to their attention, in circumstances where further damage then occurs because of the failure to act. Evidence
This tenancy lasted just over 4 years and was managed by a property manager. Both the landlord and the tenant agree that the property manager conducted regular inspections during the tenancy every 3-6 months or so. When the tenancy ended the property manager conducted an exit inspection and reported to the landlord and the tenant that everything was fine.
The next day, the landlord (owner) visited the premises and discovered a major leak in the hot water cupboard next to the laundry cupboard in the kitchen. Ms Pratt says that it was obvious that something was wrong because of condensation in the kitchen area. On opening the hot water cupboard she says that the walls were saturated and covered in black mould which smelt. She says the leak must have been obvious to the tenants but they failed to report it.
A plumber was called to drain, disconnect and remove the hot water cylinder. The plumber stated in an email that the leak was caused by the pressure reducing valve. The diaphragm on the valve had split causing it to leak. This caused substantial damage to the surrounding cabinetry and timber which was assessed and replaced by a builder. Photos of the valve and inside of the cupboard after the cylinder was removed were produced in evidence. The landlord said she had not retained other photos to show moisture and black mould.
Ms Pratt explained that the water cylinder was replaced 18 months into the tenancy in or about early 2023 but the valve and copper piping was not replaced or upgraded. It appears that this was worn and caused a slow continuous leak.
Ms Pratt argues that the tenants must have realised there was a leak at some point and by failing to report it, the leak continued causing more damage. She says it cost several thousand dollars to repair the leak and replace the surrounding cabinetry and wood. She wishes to recover some of this cost from the tenants for their failure to report the leak.
The tenants argue that they were not aware of the leak and if they had been they would have reported it to their property manager. They also noted that they never ran out of hot water; their electricity bills did not increase noticeably because of a hot water leak; the property manager carried out regular inspections and had also not noticed any leak; the property manager who carried out the end of tenancy inspection did not notice any issue which indicates that any condensation, mould or smell was not noticeable. The property manger also advised the landlord that he did not think the tenants were responsible for the leak or for failing to report the leak. The tenants also say that they would always call the property manager if anything was wrong. Findings
It is clear on the evidence and accepted by the landlord that the cause of the leak was through fair wear and tear (the valve) and was not caused by the tenants. Therefore, the issues to determine are: whether the leak became obvious at some point such that the tenants were under a duty to report it to the landlord and failed to do so; and, if so, whether the failure to report the leak resulted in further damage occurring for which the tenants are liable to compensate the landlord.
After carefully considering the available evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenants noticed the leak, or ought to have noticed the leak, and failed to report it. The fact that the hot water supply was not affected; the electricity bills did not increase and the property manager carrying out regular inspections did not notice any signs of a leak supports the tenants’ case. I also accept the tenants’ advice that during the 4 year tenancy, they would report any problems to the property manager.
Even, if the leak was obvious and ought to have been reported sooner, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that a failure to report resulted in further damage occurring at greater expense to the landlord.
A slow leak can be difficult to detect and can take a long time to manifest visible signs of damage. It is quite possible that a small slow drip in a hidden area such as a cupboard can go undetected for weeks or months causing significant damage before any signs appear. In this case, the landlord was unable to provide any expert opinion (from a plumber or similar) regarding how long the leak may have existed, when it would have become apparent, and the type of damage that could have occurred before it was detected. In other words, there is no evidence to suggest that the damage got any worse after the leak was apparent.
In summary, I find that the tenants are not liable to compensate the landlord for any costs associated with repairing the damage caused by the leak and the claim is dismissed.
The landlord advised that she had invoices showing the costs she incurred to fix the leak and replace the cabinetry. She thought they had been uploaded with her application and she wanted to produce them. However, given that I found that the tenants are not liable for the damage caused by the leak, it was unnecessary to consider this evidence.
Since the landlord’s claim is dismissed, it follows that the bond is to be refunded in full to the tenants. Also, as they have successfully defended the claim, I am ordering that their names and identifying details be suppressed.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing with Kaye Pratt representing the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims that the tenants failed to report an obvious leak at the premises which the landlord discovered after the tenancy ended. The landlord says the failure to report the leak resulted in significant damage which the landlord had to repair. The landlord seeks refund of the entire bond as a contribution to the repair costs. The tenants deny that the leak was obvious. Burden of proof
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Under section 40(1)(d) RTA, tenants also have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. A tenant may be liable for the repair costs to some extent, if they fail to report a defect or damage that comes to their attention, in circumstances where further damage then occurs because of the failure to act. Evidence
This tenancy lasted just over 4 years and was managed by a property manager. Both the landlord and the tenant agree that the property manager conducted regular inspections during the tenancy every 3-6 months or so. When the tenancy ended the property manager conducted an exit inspection and reported to the landlord and the tenant that everything was fine.
The next day, the landlord (owner) visited the premises and discovered a major leak in the hot water cupboard next to the laundry cupboard in the kitchen. Ms Pratt says that it was obvious that something was wrong because of condensation in the kitchen area. On opening the hot water cupboard she says that the walls were saturated and covered in black mould which smelt. She says the leak must have been obvious to the tenants but they failed to report it.
A plumber was called to drain, disconnect and remove the hot water cylinder. The plumber stated in an email that the leak was caused by the pressure reducing valve. The diaphragm on the valve had split causing it to leak. This caused substantial damage to the surrounding cabinetry and timber which was assessed and replaced by a builder. Photos of the valve and inside of the cupboard after the cylinder was removed were produced in evidence. The landlord said she had not retained other photos to show moisture and black mould.
Ms Pratt explained that the water cylinder was replaced 18 months into the tenancy in or about early 2023 but the valve and copper piping was not replaced or upgraded. It appears that this was worn and caused a slow continuous leak.
Ms Pratt argues that the tenants must have realised there was a leak at some point and by failing to report it, the leak continued causing more damage. She says it cost several thousand dollars to repair the leak and replace the surrounding cabinetry and wood. She wishes to recover some of this cost from the tenants for their failure to report the leak.
The tenants argue that they were not aware of the leak and if they had been they would have reported it to their property manager. They also noted that they never ran out of hot water; their electricity bills did not increase noticeably because of a hot water leak; the property manager carried out regular inspections and had also not noticed any leak; the property manager who carried out the end of tenancy inspection did not notice any issue which indicates that any condensation, mould or smell was not noticeable. The property manger also advised the landlord that he did not think the tenants were responsible for the leak or for failing to report the leak. The tenants also say that they would always call the property manager if anything was wrong. Findings
It is clear on the evidence and accepted by the landlord that the cause of the leak was through fair wear and tear (the valve) and was not caused by the tenants. Therefore, the issues to determine are: whether the leak became obvious at some point such that the tenants were under a duty to report it to the landlord and failed to do so; and, if so, whether the failure to report the leak resulted in further damage occurring for which the tenants are liable to compensate the landlord.
After carefully considering the available evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenants noticed the leak, or ought to have noticed the leak, and failed to report it. The fact that the hot water supply was not affected; the electricity bills did not increase and the property manager carrying out regular inspections did not notice any signs of a leak supports the tenants’ case. I also accept the tenants’ advice that during the 4 year tenancy, they would report any problems to the property manager.
Even, if the leak was obvious and ought to have been reported sooner, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that a failure to report resulted in further damage occurring at greater expense to the landlord.
A slow leak can be difficult to detect and can take a long time to manifest visible signs of damage. It is quite possible that a small slow drip in a hidden area such as a cupboard can go undetected for weeks or months causing significant damage before any signs appear. In this case, the landlord was unable to provide any expert opinion (from a plumber or similar) regarding how long the leak may have existed, when it would have become apparent, and the type of damage that could have occurred before it was detected. In other words, there is no evidence to suggest that the damage got any worse after the leak was apparent.
In summary, I find that the tenants are not liable to compensate the landlord for any costs associated with repairing the damage caused by the leak and the claim is dismissed.
The landlord advised that she had invoices showing the costs she incurred to fix the leak and replace the cabinetry. She thought they had been uploaded with her application and she wanted to produce them. However, given that I found that the tenants are not liable for the damage caused by the leak, it was unnecessary to consider this evidence.
Since the landlord’s claim is dismissed, it follows that the bond is to be refunded in full to the tenants. Also, as they have successfully defended the claim, I am ordering that their names and identifying details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5307800 — Mould & damp at 220 Warwick Road, Mayfair, Hastings 4122

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5307800 — Mould & damp at 220 Warwick Road, Mayfair, Hastings 4122

At a glance

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

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