What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341838 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (5469265-003) to [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5341838?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341838?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341838?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12726319-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341838 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (5469265-003) to [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5341838?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341838?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341838?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12726319-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 67 Raleigh Road, Northcote, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341838 — Leaks

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (5469265-003) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlords’ application is dismissed.
The landlords and tenants must complete a reconciliation of the water rates paid during the tenancy to ensure that the tenants are only required to pay the consumption based charges.
[The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $28.00 immediately being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference.
The tenancy ended on 24 August 2025 and the parties have since been unable to reach agreement about the bond.
The tenants brought this application on 5 September 2025 asking for return of their bond.
If a tenant applies to the Tribunal for the bond, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim, if the landlord claims any part of it. 1
In their response to the tenants’ application the landlords have set out compensation claims for replacement of a toilet cistern cover, shower drain cover and water rates. They have not though filed a counter claim.
Usually that would mean that the Tribunal would be required to pay the bond to the tenants, without considering the landlords’ claims.
However, the tenants agree that I should consider those claims and determine them.

How much is owed water rates?

The tenants agree that they have not paid the last Watercare invoice. However, it seems that throughout the tenancy, the tenants have being paying all of the Watercare invoices, which have been sent direct to them, including both consumption charges which are their responsibility and fixed charges which are the landlords’ 2 .
The tenants accept that they need to pay any outstanding charges for water use and the landlords accept that they should refund the tenants any fixed charges paid by them. I leave it to the parties to complete that reconciliation exercise. Either can make further application to the Tribunal if they can’t agree.

Are the tenants responsible for 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 tenants 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 landlords have provided photographs showing damage to a toilet cistern cover. They say that a shower drain cover was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants’ evidence is that the shower drain cover simply broke during the tenants through normal use. Shower drain covers are not robust items and are subjected to significant wear from being stood on. There is no evidence to 1 S.22B RTA 2 S.39(4)(c) RTA suggest that the shower drain cover broke through other than normal wear and tear. The claim for its replacement cost is declined.
In terms of the claim for replacement of the toilet cistern, the landlord’s photographic evidence shows damage that is more likely than not to be more than fair wear and tear and there is no dispute that it happened during the tenancy.
The tenants need to bring evidence to show it was not cause intentionally or carelessly by them.
There is no suggestion the damage was intentional.
The tenants’ evidence is that there were problems with the toilet leaking, which persisted for several months. They say that the landlord had relatives try and fix it and then a plumber was sent. The tenants say that when they came back to the premises after being out while the plumber was there, they found the toilet cistern cover cracked and assume the plumber had done it while trying to fix the leak. The landlords had the whole cistern replaced at a cost of $709.58.
The tenants have provided a txt message sent to the landlords in February 2024 “The bottom toilet has been dripping/ leaking water for about 3 months now but nothing extensive. Today when I went to clean the toilet, I pushed down after cleaning the bowl and all the water came out the top where you press the button. Armand had a look and turned off the water, and we told everyone not to use it. Unsure why it would be dripping and why it would start coming out the top.’
Photos of the toilet show that it appears to be an older plastic type cistern and cover. The 2 flush buttons do not appear properly seated.
The evidence suggests it to be more likely than not that there was a pre-existing issue with the toilet flush mechanism, connected to the buttons on top of the cistern. The landlords sent people to try and fix it and it is quite possible that the damage occurred that way. The tenants’ evidence is that it was never fully fixed and working properly.
I can understand that because the tenants didn’t tell them about the damage, the landlords assumed they must have been responsible.
However, the tenants have given direct evidence that they did not cause the damage. For me to disbelieve their direct evidence, given on the record, there would need to be very compelling contrary evidence.
The tenants’ evidence has also proved a possibility of other causes for the damage, outside their responsibility. It also proves the possibility of an imminent need for the cistern and flush mechanism to be replaced regardless of the damage to the cistern cover.
For those reasons I do not find the landlords’ claim proved.
Finally, I note that while the tenant’s application noted grievances about management of the tenancy by the landlords and alleged failures in the way their maintenance and repair obligations were carried out, the tenant claim is now limited to seeking refund of the bond.
Because the tenants have had their claim upheld I must reimburse the fling fee.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (5469265-003) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlords’ application is dismissed.
The landlords and tenants must complete a reconciliation of the water rates paid during the tenancy to ensure that the tenants are only required to pay the consumption based charges.
[The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $28.00 immediately being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference.
The tenancy ended on 24 August 2025 and the parties have since been unable to reach agreement about the bond.
The tenants brought this application on 5 September 2025 asking for return of their bond.
If a tenant applies to the Tribunal for the bond, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim, if the landlord claims any part of it. 1
In their response to the tenants’ application the landlords have set out compensation claims for replacement of a toilet cistern cover, shower drain cover and water rates. They have not though filed a counter claim.
Usually that would mean that the Tribunal would be required to pay the bond to the tenants, without considering the landlords’ claims.
However, the tenants agree that I should consider those claims and determine them.

How much is owed water rates?

The tenants agree that they have not paid the last Watercare invoice. However, it seems that throughout the tenancy, the tenants have being paying all of the Watercare invoices, which have been sent direct to them, including both consumption charges which are their responsibility and fixed charges which are the landlords’ 2 .
The tenants accept that they need to pay any outstanding charges for water use and the landlords accept that they should refund the tenants any fixed charges paid by them. I leave it to the parties to complete that reconciliation exercise. Either can make further application to the Tribunal if they can’t agree.

Are the tenants responsible for 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 tenants 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 landlords have provided photographs showing damage to a toilet cistern cover. They say that a shower drain cover was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants’ evidence is that the shower drain cover simply broke during the tenants through normal use. Shower drain covers are not robust items and are subjected to significant wear from being stood on. There is no evidence to 1 S.22B RTA 2 S.39(4)(c) RTA suggest that the shower drain cover broke through other than normal wear and tear. The claim for its replacement cost is declined.
In terms of the claim for replacement of the toilet cistern, the landlord’s photographic evidence shows damage that is more likely than not to be more than fair wear and tear and there is no dispute that it happened during the tenancy.
The tenants need to bring evidence to show it was not cause intentionally or carelessly by them.
There is no suggestion the damage was intentional.
The tenants’ evidence is that there were problems with the toilet leaking, which persisted for several months. They say that the landlord had relatives try and fix it and then a plumber was sent. The tenants say that when they came back to the premises after being out while the plumber was there, they found the toilet cistern cover cracked and assume the plumber had done it while trying to fix the leak. The landlords had the whole cistern replaced at a cost of $709.58.
The tenants have provided a txt message sent to the landlords in February 2024 “The bottom toilet has been dripping/ leaking water for about 3 months now but nothing extensive. Today when I went to clean the toilet, I pushed down after cleaning the bowl and all the water came out the top where you press the button. Armand had a look and turned off the water, and we told everyone not to use it. Unsure why it would be dripping and why it would start coming out the top.’
Photos of the toilet show that it appears to be an older plastic type cistern and cover. The 2 flush buttons do not appear properly seated.
The evidence suggests it to be more likely than not that there was a pre-existing issue with the toilet flush mechanism, connected to the buttons on top of the cistern. The landlords sent people to try and fix it and it is quite possible that the damage occurred that way. The tenants’ evidence is that it was never fully fixed and working properly.
I can understand that because the tenants didn’t tell them about the damage, the landlords assumed they must have been responsible.
However, the tenants have given direct evidence that they did not cause the damage. For me to disbelieve their direct evidence, given on the record, there would need to be very compelling contrary evidence.
The tenants’ evidence has also proved a possibility of other causes for the damage, outside their responsibility. It also proves the possibility of an imminent need for the cistern and flush mechanism to be replaced regardless of the damage to the cistern cover.
For those reasons I do not find the landlords’ claim proved.
Finally, I note that while the tenant’s application noted grievances about management of the tenancy by the landlords and alleged failures in the way their maintenance and repair obligations were carried out, the tenant claim is now limited to seeking refund of the bond.
Because the tenants have had their claim upheld I must reimburse the fling fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341838 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 2, 67 Raleigh Road, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341838 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 2, 67 Raleigh Road, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed water rates?

Are the tenants responsible for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed water rates?

Are the tenants responsible for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions