What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5425702?

The tribunal order states: Vinay Mamgain and Preeti Sharma to pay Iron Bridge Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5425702?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425702?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425702?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13024410-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5425702?

The tribunal order states: Vinay Mamgain and Preeti Sharma to pay Iron Bridge Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5425702?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5425702?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5425702?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13024410-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 42 Champion Street, Edgeware, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5425702 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5425702 — net $778.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for water damage claim	$750.00	Insurance excess for water damage claim
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$778.00
Bond	$2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$778.00

Vinay Mamgain and Preeti Sharma to pay Iron Bridge Property Management Limited $778.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (3326571-015) immediately apportioned as follows: Iron Bridge Property Management Limited: $778.00 Vinay Mamgain and Preeti Sharma: $1,862.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by video/phone. Mr Mamgain represented the tenants. Ms Stevens represented the landlord.

The landlord has applied for compensation limited to the amount of the insurance excess for water damage caused by leaking from the tenants’ washing machine into the wall behind the machine and beyond.

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 1 .

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 2 .

There was a leaking event from the upstairs shower that was unrelated to later leaking and water damage. The shower leak was repaired.

The landlord’s contracted plumbers had difficulty locating the source of the leaking downstairs that spread from the garage where the tenants’ washing machine was located through wall linings into other rooms.

Possible causes of the leaking were failed tiling, or a shower drain cap allowing water to leak. But the probable cause was then identified – leaking from the washing machine hoses where the hose connects to the water pipes that run through the wall at the back of the machine.

The tenants were careful to always report damage. As they noted, it took 3 plumbers to locate the actual cause of the leaking.

Leaking issues are sometimes difficult to identify so the initial uncertainty is understandable. However, the evidence the landlord has produced from the plumber who correctly identified the cause of the leaking establishes that it was the connection between the washing machine hose or hoses and the water pipes where the leak occurred. 1 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA

A failure to ensure proper connections on a washing machine that are leak free is a careless act; there is no suggestion that the tenants acted intentionally.

Once the washing machine hoses were replaced moisture readings showed that the leaking stopped. That further establishes the washing machine hoses as the cause of the leaking.

I find that the landlord has proved a claim for careless damage by the tenants due to the washing machine hoses leaking. Result

The landlord has proved a claim against the tenants for careless damage that resulted in leaking requiring repairs to the downstairs rooms that were affected.

The tenants’ liability is limited to the insurance excess on the owner’s insurance policy.

The tenants will pay the landlord $750.00 as well as the filing fee of $28.00, a total of $778.00 from the bond.

The bond will be split between the parties - $778.00 to the landlord and $1,862.00 to the tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5425702 — net $778.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for water damage claim	$750.00	Insurance excess for water damage claim
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$778.00
Bond	$2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$778.00

Order

Vinay Mamgain and Preeti Sharma to pay Iron Bridge Property Management Limited $778.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (3326571-015) immediately apportioned as follows: Iron Bridge Property Management Limited: $778.00 Vinay Mamgain and Preeti Sharma: $1,862.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by video/phone. Mr Mamgain represented the tenants. Ms Stevens represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation limited to the amount of the insurance excess for water damage caused by leaking from the tenants’ washing machine into the wall behind the machine and beyond.

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 1 .
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 2 .
There was a leaking event from the upstairs shower that was unrelated to later leaking and water damage. The shower leak was repaired.
The landlord’s contracted plumbers had difficulty locating the source of the leaking downstairs that spread from the garage where the tenants’ washing machine was located through wall linings into other rooms.
Possible causes of the leaking were failed tiling, or a shower drain cap allowing water to leak. But the probable cause was then identified – leaking from the washing machine hoses where the hose connects to the water pipes that run through the wall at the back of the machine.
The tenants were careful to always report damage. As they noted, it took 3 plumbers to locate the actual cause of the leaking.
Leaking issues are sometimes difficult to identify so the initial uncertainty is understandable. However, the evidence the landlord has produced from the plumber who correctly identified the cause of the leaking establishes that it was the connection between the washing machine hose or hoses and the water pipes where the leak occurred. 1 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA
A failure to ensure proper connections on a washing machine that are leak free is a careless act; there is no suggestion that the tenants acted intentionally.
Once the washing machine hoses were replaced moisture readings showed that the leaking stopped. That further establishes the washing machine hoses as the cause of the leaking.
I find that the landlord has proved a claim for careless damage by the tenants due to the washing machine hoses leaking. Result
The landlord has proved a claim against the tenants for careless damage that resulted in leaking requiring repairs to the downstairs rooms that were affected.
The tenants’ liability is limited to the insurance excess on the owner’s insurance policy.
The tenants will pay the landlord $750.00 as well as the filing fee of $28.00, a total of $778.00 from the bond.
The bond will be split between the parties - $778.00 to the landlord and $1,862.00 to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425702 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4, 42 Champion Street, Edgeware, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5425702 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4, 42 Champion Street, Edgeware, Christchurch

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions