What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5519736 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5519736?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5519736?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5519736?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14168396-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5519736 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5519736?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5519736?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5519736?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14168396-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26 Arriere Lane, Silverdale 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5519736 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tenant was assisted by a Korean interpreter
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, termination of the tenancy, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing, the Landlord withdrew their claim for rent arrears as the Tenant was up to date and their claim for the damaged cooktop.

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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the septic tank.
The Landlord claimed $6148.80 for septic tank investigations, tank emptying, plumbing and electrical attendance and pump repairs.
The Landlord submitted the tenants moved in on 15 January 2026 and the septic tank was damaged on two occasions since then. The previous tenants occupied the property from 17 January 2024 to 14 January 2026 and there were no septic system issues or blockages requiring the tank to be emptied.
The landlord submitted on 25 March 2026, plumbers attended after the septic alarm activated and found sanitary products, wipes, wrappers, lolly wrappers, coffee cup lids, oil, fat and grease obstructing the system. The tank was emptied at the landlord’s expense as responsibility could not initially be established. The invoice from the plumber stated: Travelled to site - 25/03/2026 • Met with tenants and discussed the issue with the Eco Flow alarm • Investigated the alarm sounding on the sewer system • Tenant advised that the alarm turns on and off intermittently • Removed the lid from the tank • Found sewage level within normal range; however debris (including plastic waste) was present in the tank • Observed the pump activate and reduce the level, confirming it was operating as required • Discussed with the property manager that the tank required pumping out to rectify the issue Travelled to site - 31/03/2026 • Gained access to the property • Removed the lid to allow access for the sewage sucker truck • Set up equipment for the sucker truck • Emptied the sewage tank and cleared all debris • Disconnected and removed pump • Tested and serviced pump and associated pipework to ensure correct functionality • Reinstated pump inside tank • Tested and commissioned system with water
On 5 May 2026, the septic tank required attention again. The Landlord submitted the Plumbers found similar foreign objects in the tank. The invoice from plumber stated the following: Travelled to site 13/05/2026 • Lifted the lid to expose EcoFlow sewer tank • Found the tank was full and the red light was on the main unit • Tenant advised the light had been on for over a week • Liaised with the Property Manager and received permission to have the tank emptied • Refitted tank lid • Advised the tenant we would return to site Travelled to site - 14/05/2026 • Met with the sewer sucker truck • Removed tank lid • Observed tank contents while the tank was being emptied • Cleared the remaining debris from the tank • Found the pump not operating • The tenant advised that the fault light had been on for over a week • Filled the tank with the hose to cover the pump height for testing • The pump failed to activate • Reset the main board and switch underneath, with no change. Tested the power supply and found no power to the pump • Confirmed cables inside the tank showed no power present • Electrician required to attend for further investigation • Tidied work area • Notified the property manager
An electrician also attended and confirmed the electrical components were functioning correctly, while the Plumber inspected and repaired the pump.The electrician found there was no issue with the power. The system was then cleaned and restored to proper operation. The tenant was then issued a 14-day breach notice.
The landlord submitted the repeated presence of inappropriate materials shortly after the tenancy commenced indicates that the tenant has failed to use the septic system properly and reasonably. The Landlord submitted the pumps had a lifespan of 12 to 14 years and it was installed around 2018. She stated it took 30 seconds for objects to reach the septic tank and can take a week to fill up.
In support of their claims, the Landlord provided invoices from the plumber, electrician, which included photographs of the debris at the bottom of the tank, photographs of sanitary pads in packets on a shelf.
The Tenant submitted they did not flush any foreign objects down the toilet.The Tenants husband was present when the plumber attended and the plumber told him that the debris could have been there for some time and the second time it wads damaged was an electrical or pump issue. The Landlord also had no evidence that the actual debris was disposed by them.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Landlord has not established that the debris found in the septic tank was caused by the Tenants misuse of the septic system. Whilst the Landlord submits these issues never occurred in the previous tenancy, the invoices from the plumber and electrician alone do not establish that the debris were recent or most likely to have been caused by the Tenants. The invoices stated what work was done and what was discovered but there was nothing concrete, confirming the likely cause was recent debris due to these Tenants. The second invoice in May 2026 also refers to the ‘clearing of debris’ but there is no confirmation of what these were. The Landlord stated it was the same debris found in March 2026. I note there were no photos filed to confirm the debris found the second time the Plumber attended. There was also no evidence from the previous tenancy to confirm they had no issues with the septic tank. There was also no expert evidence from an independent plumber establishing when the debris entered the system, whether it caused the pump failure, or whether the pump had been properly maintained. An independent plumbing expert could have assisted in determining the likely cause and timing of the debris and pump failure. In the absence of such evidence, I find the Landlord has not proved the Tenants caused the damage.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. Termination
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 14 May 2026 because of the damage to the septic tank however I have found that the Tenants have not breached their obligations with respect to the septic tank. I also note after the breach notice was served, there were no further damages to the septic tank.
The claim is dismissed.
As the landlord has not been successful with their claims, they shall bear the costs of the filing fee.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tenant was assisted by a Korean interpreter
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, termination of the tenancy, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing, the Landlord withdrew their claim for rent arrears as the Tenant was up to date and their claim for the damaged cooktop.

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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the septic tank.
The Landlord claimed $6148.80 for septic tank investigations, tank emptying, plumbing and electrical attendance and pump repairs.
The Landlord submitted the tenants moved in on 15 January 2026 and the septic tank was damaged on two occasions since then. The previous tenants occupied the property from 17 January 2024 to 14 January 2026 and there were no septic system issues or blockages requiring the tank to be emptied.
The landlord submitted on 25 March 2026, plumbers attended after the septic alarm activated and found sanitary products, wipes, wrappers, lolly wrappers, coffee cup lids, oil, fat and grease obstructing the system. The tank was emptied at the landlord’s expense as responsibility could not initially be established. The invoice from the plumber stated: Travelled to site - 25/03/2026 • Met with tenants and discussed the issue with the Eco Flow alarm • Investigated the alarm sounding on the sewer system • Tenant advised that the alarm turns on and off intermittently • Removed the lid from the tank • Found sewage level within normal range; however debris (including plastic waste) was present in the tank • Observed the pump activate and reduce the level, confirming it was operating as required • Discussed with the property manager that the tank required pumping out to rectify the issue Travelled to site - 31/03/2026 • Gained access to the property • Removed the lid to allow access for the sewage sucker truck • Set up equipment for the sucker truck • Emptied the sewage tank and cleared all debris • Disconnected and removed pump • Tested and serviced pump and associated pipework to ensure correct functionality • Reinstated pump inside tank • Tested and commissioned system with water
On 5 May 2026, the septic tank required attention again. The Landlord submitted the Plumbers found similar foreign objects in the tank. The invoice from plumber stated the following: Travelled to site 13/05/2026 • Lifted the lid to expose EcoFlow sewer tank • Found the tank was full and the red light was on the main unit • Tenant advised the light had been on for over a week • Liaised with the Property Manager and received permission to have the tank emptied • Refitted tank lid • Advised the tenant we would return to site Travelled to site - 14/05/2026 • Met with the sewer sucker truck • Removed tank lid • Observed tank contents while the tank was being emptied • Cleared the remaining debris from the tank • Found the pump not operating • The tenant advised that the fault light had been on for over a week • Filled the tank with the hose to cover the pump height for testing • The pump failed to activate • Reset the main board and switch underneath, with no change. Tested the power supply and found no power to the pump • Confirmed cables inside the tank showed no power present • Electrician required to attend for further investigation • Tidied work area • Notified the property manager
An electrician also attended and confirmed the electrical components were functioning correctly, while the Plumber inspected and repaired the pump.The electrician found there was no issue with the power. The system was then cleaned and restored to proper operation. The tenant was then issued a 14-day breach notice.
The landlord submitted the repeated presence of inappropriate materials shortly after the tenancy commenced indicates that the tenant has failed to use the septic system properly and reasonably. The Landlord submitted the pumps had a lifespan of 12 to 14 years and it was installed around 2018. She stated it took 30 seconds for objects to reach the septic tank and can take a week to fill up.
In support of their claims, the Landlord provided invoices from the plumber, electrician, which included photographs of the debris at the bottom of the tank, photographs of sanitary pads in packets on a shelf.
The Tenant submitted they did not flush any foreign objects down the toilet.The Tenants husband was present when the plumber attended and the plumber told him that the debris could have been there for some time and the second time it wads damaged was an electrical or pump issue. The Landlord also had no evidence that the actual debris was disposed by them.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Landlord has not established that the debris found in the septic tank was caused by the Tenants misuse of the septic system. Whilst the Landlord submits these issues never occurred in the previous tenancy, the invoices from the plumber and electrician alone do not establish that the debris were recent or most likely to have been caused by the Tenants. The invoices stated what work was done and what was discovered but there was nothing concrete, confirming the likely cause was recent debris due to these Tenants. The second invoice in May 2026 also refers to the ‘clearing of debris’ but there is no confirmation of what these were. The Landlord stated it was the same debris found in March 2026. I note there were no photos filed to confirm the debris found the second time the Plumber attended. There was also no evidence from the previous tenancy to confirm they had no issues with the septic tank. There was also no expert evidence from an independent plumber establishing when the debris entered the system, whether it caused the pump failure, or whether the pump had been properly maintained. An independent plumbing expert could have assisted in determining the likely cause and timing of the debris and pump failure. In the absence of such evidence, I find the Landlord has not proved the Tenants caused the damage.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. Termination
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 14 May 2026 because of the damage to the septic tank however I have found that the Tenants have not breached their obligations with respect to the septic tank. I also note after the breach notice was served, there were no further damages to the septic tank.
The claim is dismissed.
As the landlord has not been successful with their claims, they shall bear the costs of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5519736 — Rent arrears at 26 Arriere Lane, Silverdale 0932

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5519736 — Rent arrears at 26 Arriere Lane, Silverdale 0932

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.