What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331889 about?

The tribunal order states: On its own motion the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and

How much money was awarded in case 5331889?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331889?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12571127-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331889 about?

The tribunal order states: On its own motion the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and

How much money was awarded in case 5331889?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331889?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12571127-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

72 Lynn Road, Bayview, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5331889 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

The landlord claims the cost of calling out a plumber to the premises to unblock the kitchen sink and the toilet.

The tenants first reported the blocked sink and then reported the blocked toilet. A plumber then attended and unblocked both.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

In support of this claim the landlord produced the plumber’s invoice and an email from them.

The invoice refers to finding vegetables in the insinkerator, unblocking that and then having to blast the drain outside to unblock that.

The plumber then unblocked the toilet using a plunger.

The email states that there was nothing in the toilet that should not have been there and there is no way to know whether the blockage was the fault of the tenant.

Regarding the sink, it states that the tenants should use plenty of water when using the sink disposal.

The tenants said that they have used an insinkerator previously and that it was able to cope with all the food waste they put down it. It seems that this one isn’t, and they now put their food waste in the green bin.

The landlord said that the tenants have been careless. They should have unblocked the toilet themselves using a plunger, and they should not have put large food scraps down the insinkerator. The landlord did not advise the tenants at the time to use a plunger on the toilet.

The evidence does not prove that the tenants have been careless.

There is no evidence that the tenants misused the toilet, and the plumber does not attribute blame the tenant. The landlord suggested that the tenants should have used their common sense and used a plunger. But not everyone has a plunger or knows what it is for. If it is that obvious, I question why the landlord did not ask the tenants whether they had tried to unlock it using a plunger? It is no answer to say that there should have been no need to do that.

I accept that the tenants previous experience of an insinkerator was that it could cope with large food scraps. It was reasonable for them to think that this insinkerator would do the same. Moreover, the plumber had to water blast the outside drain which suggests that the problem went beyond the insinkerator.

The application is therefore dismissed.

Because the tenants have succeeded, I have granted them name suppression.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

The landlord claims the cost of calling out a plumber to the premises to unblock the kitchen sink and the toilet.

The tenants first reported the blocked sink and then reported the blocked toilet. A plumber then attended and unblocked both.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

In support of this claim the landlord produced the plumber’s invoice and an email from them.

The invoice refers to finding vegetables in the insinkerator, unblocking that and then having to blast the drain outside to unblock that.

The plumber then unblocked the toilet using a plunger.

The email states that there was nothing in the toilet that should not have been there and there is no way to know whether the blockage was the fault of the tenant.

Regarding the sink, it states that the tenants should use plenty of water when using the sink disposal.

The evidence does not prove that the tenants have been careless.

The application is therefore dismissed.

Because the tenants have succeeded, I have granted them name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331889 — Tenancy dispute at 72 Lynn Road, Bayview, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331889 — Tenancy dispute at 72 Lynn Road, Bayview, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions