Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429537 — Tenancy dispute at 85 Waimairi Road, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

Decided 17 Jun 2026 · Published 17 Jun 2026 · Application 5429537

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

Christchurch

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

N Walker

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $550.00 (3439104-011) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 17 June 2026 by video.
The landlord has applied for compensation of $550.00 which is the insurance excess for an accepted insurance claim related to a flood at the premises.
The flood occurred on the evening of 28 January 2025 or the morning of 29 January 2025. The tenant reported the flood to the landlord as soon as it was discovered on the morning of 29 January 2025. The flood was in the kitchen area and went through to the living room. The water which caused the flood came from the kitchen tap.
The tenants had been advised by the local Council that the water mains would be shut off for road works to be carried out. The water was to be shut off overnight and would be turned on by morning. There was no evidence from the Council in relation to when the water was turned off and on.
The landlord submits that the tenants left the kitchen tap in the on position so that when the water was turned on by Council it caused the flood.
The tenant denies that the tap was left in the on position. Instead, it was submitted that there had been pressure issues with that tap, although this was not reported to the landlord.
A couple of weeks after the flood the landlord arranged for a plumber to look at the tap due to the concerns raised by the tenants. The landlord says that no work was required by the plumber but no evidence from the plumber was submitted.
The tenants say that the tap was not on when they went to sleep and at that stage the water had not yet been turned off.
The key issue is when the water was switched off and back on. This evidence would assist in determining whether the flooding and resulting damage was caused by the tenant’s carelessness. If the water had been turned back on when the tenants were awake they would have likely known that the water was running. If it occurred when they were asleep it is not reasonable for them to hear the running water.
There is a possibility that trapped air or the pressure of the water being turned on by the Council may have contributed to the situation but there was no evidence from either the landlord or the tenant in relation to this.
The onus is on the landlord to establish on the balance of probabilities that the tenants’ actions caused the damage. As stated above, evidence from the Council or the plumber may have assisted but was not produced.
On the evidence before the Tribunal the landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant’s actions were careless and caused the damage.
The landlord’s application for compensation is dismissed.
The remaining bond in dispute is released to the tenants.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Christchurch

Property management

PROGRESSIVE REALTY LIMITED as agents for Jing Chen & Jingnan Ke (applicant)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5429537 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $550.00 (3439104-011) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s],

How much money was awarded in case 5429537?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429537?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429537?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13759846-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

For landlords & property managers

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.

Order a Tenantcheck →

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 17 June 2026 by video.

The landlord has applied for compensation of $550.00 which is the insurance excess for an accepted insurance claim related to a flood at the premises.

The flood occurred on the evening of 28 January 2025 or the morning of 29 January 2025. The tenant reported the flood to the landlord as soon as it was discovered on the morning of 29 January 2025. The flood was in the kitchen area and went through to the living room. The water which caused the flood came from the kitchen tap.

The tenants had been advised by the local Council that the water mains would be shut off for road works to be carried out. The water was to be shut off overnight and would be turned on by morning. There was no evidence from the Council in relation to when the water was turned off and on.

The landlord submits that the tenants left the kitchen tap in the on position so that when the water was turned on by Council it caused the flood.

The tenant denies that the tap was left in the on position. Instead, it was submitted that there had been pressure issues with that tap, although this was not reported to the landlord.

A couple of weeks after the flood the landlord arranged for a plumber to look at the tap due to the concerns raised by the tenants. The landlord says that no work was required by the plumber but no evidence from the plumber was submitted.

The tenants say that the tap was not on when they went to sleep and at that stage the water had not yet been turned off.

The key issue is when the water was switched off and back on. This evidence would assist in determining whether the flooding and resulting damage was caused by the tenant’s carelessness. If the water had been turned back on when the tenants were awake they would have likely known that the water was running. If it occurred when they were asleep it is not reasonable for them to hear the running water.

There is a possibility that trapped air or the pressure of the water being turned on by the Council may have contributed to the situation but there was no evidence from either the landlord or the tenant in relation to this.

The onus is on the landlord to establish on the balance of probabilities that the tenants’ actions caused the damage. As stated above, evidence from the Council or the plumber may have assisted but was not produced.

On the evidence before the Tribunal the landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant’s actions were careless and caused the damage.

The landlord’s application for compensation is dismissed.

The remaining bond in dispute is released to the tenants.