What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439353 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5439353?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439353?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439353?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13479758-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439353 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5439353?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439353?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439353?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13479758-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13 Thornton Road, Milford, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5439353 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5439353 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$28.00

Both parties attended the hearing held on 20 April 2026.

The tenancy began on 27 September 2025 and is for a fixed term due to end on 25 September 2026.

The landlord has applied for compensation for damage. The tenant application opposes the landlord’s claim.

On 2 December 2025 the tenant messaged the landlord to advise that the carpet in one of the bedrooms was soaked and they did not know where the water had come from. The tenant used a wet vacuum to collect some of the water.

The tenant advised the landlord on 4 December 2026 that the carpet was wet again. The landlord asked if the tenant had used the washing machine as the laundry is on the other side of that wall. The tenant advised that they had not used the washing machine.

On 11 December 2026 the landlord and the builder attended at the premises. The wall lining was removed. The landlord advised that there was no leakage of the water pipe and the builder confirmed the leak was caused by the drain pipe of the washing machine not being connected properly.

The builder’s invoice dated 11 December 2026 records, “Found leak originating from laundry which is next to the bedroom on the opposite side of the wall, and moisture high up to 1300 mm height both side and referred exterior wall...Preliminary determination a large amount of water impact on the laundry side of the wall in a short time.”

The landlord submitted an insurance claim in relation to the damage and seeks reimbursement of the insurance excess of $750.00 from the tenant.

The landlord produced a brief email from the insurance company confirming that the claim was accepted as a Sudden and Accidental event. The landlord was unable to obtain a report from the insurance company even though the tenant had repeatedly asked about one.

A photograph produced for the hearing shows that the outlet pipe for the washing machine goes into the sink of the laundry tub and is tied to one of the taps on the tub. When the repairs were carried out the tub was replaced, and the washing machine outlet pipe was piped directly into the tub because the plumber identified that it was a risk to have it empty into the tub sink.

At the hearing the landlord spoke about the tenant not saying what happened and advising where the water came from. The landlord thought that because the tenant lived in the premises, they must know what happened.

The tenants were consistent in denying knowing how the carpet became wet. They advised that they did not use the washing machine from 22 November 2025 which is eleven days before they noticed the water-soaked carpet. This suggests that perhaps the water did not originate from the washing machine. Also, the carpet was wet again on 4 December 2025, but the tenant had still not used the washing machine.

I also note that there had been other leaks at the property prior to this one including leaking in the main bedroom and the other bedroom where a plumber installed a new downpipe.

Section 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the tenant is liable for intentional or careless damage. The insurance company had accepted the claim as a sudden or accidental event. That does not suggest that the damage was caused either intentionally or carelessly by the tenant.

On the evidence before the Tribunal, it seems that the leak was accidental and therefore not due to the tenant’s carelessness or intentional act.

The landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

As the landlord was unsuccessful with the claim, I make no order for reimbursement of the filing free or suppression of the landlord’s name.

Because [The respondent/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s name as sought.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5439353 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$28.00

Both parties attended the hearing held on 20 April 2026.

The tenancy began on 27 September 2025 and is for a fixed term due to end on 25 September 2026.

The landlord has applied for compensation for damage. The tenant application opposes the landlord’s claim.

The landlord submitted an insurance claim in relation to the damage and seeks reimbursement of the insurance excess of $750.00 from the tenant.

I also note that there had been other leaks at the property prior to this one including leaking in the main bedroom and the other bedroom where a plumber installed a new downpipe.

On the evidence before the Tribunal, it seems that the leak was accidental and therefore not due to the tenant’s carelessness or intentional act.

The landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

As the landlord was unsuccessful with the claim, I make no order for reimbursement of the filing free or suppression of the landlord’s name.

Because [The respondent/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s name as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439353 — Tenancy dispute at 13 Thornton Road, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439353 — Tenancy dispute at 13 Thornton Road, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions