What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329826 about?

The tribunal order states: There are orders for suppression of the names of both the tenant and landlord

How much money was awarded in case 5329826?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,843.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329826?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329826?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12710260-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329826 about?

The tribunal order states: There are orders for suppression of the names of both the tenant and landlord

How much money was awarded in case 5329826?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,843.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329826?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329826?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12710260-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5329826 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329826 — net $1,871.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$1,843.26	Repairs
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$1,871.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,871.26

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely.

The landlord seeks reimbursement of $1,843.26 for callout and repair of a septic tank. According to the email and invoices from the sewer repair company and the District Council, the company was called out because of a pump fault. The pump and other parts had to be replaced because foreign objects had damaged it.

The landlord also provided a photograph in which a wad of wet wipes or something similar is apparent.

The tenant denies putting any wet wipes or other objects down the toilet. She has lived at properties with septic tanks for 27 years. She has never had any problems until this one.

Last year there was a call out for a similar problem. She paid the fee for cleaning it out because she did not want to lose her house. She suggests that the company did not properly clean the tank last time and so it is historic material that has caused the damage. She also suggests there may be a fault with the tank and that other people in the area have had problems with their tanks.

The property manager has made enquiries of the Council and the tenant’s claims have not been substantiated. The property was a brand-new house at the start of the tenancy. It is agreed that there have been some issues with cracks in the walls, but there is nothing to suggest that the septic tank is faulty. The tank was put in at the same time as the house.

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.

The damage to the septic tank pump and parts is more than fair wear and tear.

Although the tenant denies putting anything down the toilet that could cause damage to the pump, the fact remains that she and her family have been the first and only occupants since December 2023. The damage has occurred during her tenancy.

Although the tenant has put forward some theories, she has provided no evidence to support her assertion that it was not her or someone at the premises with her permission, who caused the damage. The most logical conclusion is that someone at her home has done this.

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.

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’s insurers have declined cover. The amount claimed is less than the equivalent of four weeks’ rent and so I have not had to determine whether the damage should be classified as careless or intentional.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The property manager confirmed that the tenant is a good tenant in other respects and agreed to name suppression. The names of the parties are therefore suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329826 — net $1,871.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$1,843.26	Repairs
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$1,871.26
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,871.26

Order

There are orders for suppression of the names of both the tenant and landlord and identifying details.
[The tenant] must pay [the landlord] the sum of $1,871.26 as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely.
The landlord seeks reimbursement of $1,843.26 for callout and repair of a septic tank. According to the email and invoices from the sewer repair company and the District Council, the company was called out because of a pump fault. The pump and other parts had to be replaced because foreign objects had damaged it.
The landlord also provided a photograph in which a wad of wet wipes or something similar is apparent.
The tenant denies putting any wet wipes or other objects down the toilet. She has lived at properties with septic tanks for 27 years. She has never had any problems until this one.
Last year there was a call out for a similar problem. She paid the fee for cleaning it out because she did not want to lose her house. She suggests that the company did not properly clean the tank last time and so it is historic material that has caused the damage. She also suggests there may be a fault with the tank and that other people in the area have had problems with their tanks.
The property manager has made enquiries of the Council and the tenant’s claims have not been substantiated. The property was a brand-new house at the start of the tenancy. It is agreed that there have been some issues with cracks in the walls, but there is nothing to suggest that the septic tank is faulty. The tank was put in at the same time as the house.

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.
The damage to the septic tank pump and parts is more than fair wear and tear.
Although the tenant denies putting anything down the toilet that could cause damage to the pump, the fact remains that she and her family have been the first and only occupants since December 2023. The damage has occurred during her tenancy.
Although the tenant has put forward some theories, she has provided no evidence to support her assertion that it was not her or someone at the premises with her permission, who caused the damage. The most logical conclusion is that someone at her home has done this.
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.
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’s insurers have declined cover. The amount claimed is less than the equivalent of four weeks’ rent and so I have not had to determine whether the damage should be classified as careless or intentional.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The property manager confirmed that the tenant is a good tenant in other respects and agreed to name suppression. The names of the parties are therefore suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329826 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329826 — 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