How much money was awarded in case 4569834?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4569834?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4569834?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9401620-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4569834?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4569834?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4569834?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9401620-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 486 Barbadoes Street, Edgeware, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4569834 — Leaks

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4569834?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Amarjit Singh and Sandeep Kaur Jheeta must pay Prestige Property Management Limited as Agent for Vulcan Investment Group $700.00 immediately, as a contribution for shower waste blockage and associated repairs.

The parties’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation of $1,925.75 for repairs following a blocked shower drain.

The tenant claims compensation of $2,500 for loss of amenity for delays I completing repairs following the blocked shower drain and breach of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations regarding the heat pump and hot water cylinder.

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 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.

The landlord claimed $1,925.75 being the combined cost of clearing a shower drain and associated repairs. The second-floor shower leaked through the ceiling in September 2022. Investigation by a plumber revealed that drain had small toys in it (a hot wheels car and lego pieces). There was also a crack in the shower waste. The plumber carried out a repair on 16 September 2023.

There was another leak on 21 September 2022. The plumber returned on 27 September and found more toys in the drain.

The drain repair was completed at the time but some of the ground floor ceilings had to be removed to access the drainpipe. The sheet of gib was not reinstated until March 2023. Even allowing for the difficulty in sourcing gib board at that time, a delay of 5 to 6 months is unreasonable.

In September 2022, the landlord proposed that the parties each pay half of the repair, give that it was partly caused by the toys blocking the drain and partly from a crack. That was a reasonable and realistic proposal.

The tenant maintained that the toys entering the drain was accidental. The shower waster had to be removed for the children to be able to put toys into it. The tenant said that it was removed during cleaning. I find that it is more likely than not that the toys ended up in the drain as a result of carelessness.

Weighed against that, is the fact that a crack also contributed to the leak and the ceiling repair took 5 to 6 months to complete.

In the circumstances, I award the landlord $700 for the shower waste blockage and consequential repairs. Tenant Claims

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The obligation to repair is not absolute. Rather, a landlord must repair within a reasonable timeframe of becoming aware of the need to repair.

The tenant claims that the landlord took too long to complete the ceiling repair following the shower leak. That issue is dealt with in relation to the landlord’s claim above.

The tenant also claims that a heat pump repair took too long and that the hot water cylinder leaked for approximately 2 months before it was repaired.

The tenant first advised of an issue with the heat pump on 23 November 2023. The landlord replied with a suggestion for resetting the heat pump. The tenant said that he would try that and did not advise the landlord that the reset had not worked until 24 February 2023. The existing heat pump was checked by 9 March 2023 and new one installed on 18 March 2023. The tenant did not establish any breach by the landlord in relation to the heat pump. The claim is dismissed.

The tenant also claimed that the overflow pipe of the hot water cylinder was leaking for at least two months. The tenant was not aware of the leak during that period and did not advise the landlord of the need for repair. The tenant advised the landlord of the issue on 7 March 2023, and it was repaired by 20 March 2023. I fid that is reasonable timeframe.

The tenant has not established that it is more likely than not that the landlord breached is repair and maintenance obligations.

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Having regard to the respective success of the parties, I have not reimbursed either filing fee.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

The parties’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation of $1,925.75 for repairs following a blocked shower drain.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There was another leak on 21 September 2022. The plumber returned on 27 September and found more toys in the drain.

Weighed against that, is the fact that a crack also contributed to the leak and the ceiling repair took 5 to 6 months to complete.

In the circumstances, I award the landlord $700 for the shower waste blockage and consequential repairs. Tenant Claims

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant claims that the landlord took too long to complete the ceiling repair following the shower leak. That issue is dealt with in relation to the landlord’s claim above.

The tenant also claims that a heat pump repair took too long and that the hot water cylinder leaked for approximately 2 months before it was repaired.

The tenant has not established that it is more likely than not that the landlord breached is repair and maintenance obligations.

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Having regard to the respective success of the parties, I have not reimbursed either filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4569834 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 4, 486 Barbadoes Street, Edgeware, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4569834 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 4, 486 Barbadoes Street, Edgeware, Christchurch

At a glance

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

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