What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4939761?

The tribunal order states: Anne-Marie Bartlett must pay Kevin Stuart Wall and Linda Wall $246.53,

How much money was awarded in case 4939761?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $219.53 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939761?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939761?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11360082-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4939761?

The tribunal order states: Anne-Marie Bartlett must pay Kevin Stuart Wall and Linda Wall $246.53,

How much money was awarded in case 4939761?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $219.53 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939761?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939761?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11360082-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Salisbury Street, Waikiwi, Invercargill 9810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4939761 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4939761 — net $246.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$219.53	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$246.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$246.53

Order

Anne-Marie Bartlett must pay Kevin Stuart Wall and Linda Wall $246.53, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
On 13 April 2024, the tenant advised the landlord that the toilet was leaking.
On 30 April 2024, a plumber visited the property to investigate the issue. The findings of the plumber are in dispute. The plumber applied sealant to the base of the toilet.
The tenant accepts that shortly after the plumber visited the property she steam-mopped the bathroom, which caused the sealant to pull away.
The plumber revisited the property and applied sealant to the base of the toilet again.
The plumber issued the landlord an invoice for a total of $439.06 for both visits.
The landlord claims the tenant is liable to cover the full cost of the invoice for the following reasons: a. The toilet was never leaking; and b. The tenant damaged the sealant after it was applied by the plumber, necessitating the need for a second visit.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
In Kaipo v Clarke & McCarth (DC) TT233/02, the District Court held that, in practical terms, the burden of proof means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I consider the landlord’s claims in turn below. Is the tenant liable to cover the cost of the plumber’s first visit to the property?
Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a landlord to “provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.”
It is well settled that a landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord claims that the toilet was not leaking and therefore, there was not a “defect” that required investigation and repair.
The tenant disputes this and claims the toilet was leaking from its base.
In support of their claim, the landlord gave evidence that the plumber advised them verbally that there was no internal or external leak in the toilet.
The landlord did not call the plumber as a witness, but submitted a copy of their invoice which notes the following: Water around base of toilet. Travelled to site, checked toilet, no cracks in pan but did clean up what appears to be urine on floor around base of toilet. Discussed options with client and he would like toilet resealed around base rather than replaced. Returned to site, sealed around base of toilet and sent photo to client. Returned to site, lifted toilet, dried floor, fitted back in place and resealed. Adjusted and tightened flush pipe, tested and all good.
The landlord highlights the portion of the invoice that records there were no cracks in the pan of the toilet. Therefore, the landlord claims there was no leak.
The landlord gave evidence that they believed that reason there was urine on the floor at the base of the toilet was because the tenant or a person at the property with the tenant’s permission had missed the bowl when urinating.
The tenant strongly denied this allegation and gave evidence that the toilet was leaking from its base due to there being little to no sealant. The tenant submitted a photograph of the base of the toilet taken from before the plumber’s first visit.
The tenant gave evidence that since the base of the toilet has been resealed, it is no longer leaking.
I do not consider that the landlord has proven their claim that there was no defect that required investigation and repair. It is clear from the photograph of the toilet taken by the tenant before the plumber’s first visit, that the sealant around the base was minimal and had significantly eroded.
The invoice from the plumber does not state that there was no leak that required repair. The landlord did not call the plumber as a witness or submit any written communication form the plumber directly confirming this to be the case. The fact that the plumber applied sealant to the base of the toilet after their first visit suggests that this was an issue that required repair. Further, the plumber’s invoice notes that they “discussed options with the client and he would like toilet resealed rather than replaced.” This indicates that there was an issue with the toilet that could be remedied by either resealing or replacing it entirely.
On the balance of probabilities, I consider it more likely than not that the presence of water and what appeared to be urine on the floor at the base of the toilet had most likely leaked from the base of the toilet due to the lack of sealant.
The landlord’s claim that the tenant is liable to pay the cost of the plumber’s first visit is dismissed. Is the tenant liable to cover the cost of the plumber’s second visit to the property?
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.
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the sealant the plumber applied to the base of the toilet after their first visit to the property.
The tenant gave evidence that shortly after the plumber visited the property, they steam mopped the floor in the toilet, which caused the sealant to come away. The tenant gave evidence that they forgot the plumber had recently sealed the base of the toilet.
On the balance of probabilities, I find that the tenant carelessly damaged the sealant that the plumber applied to the base of the toilet after their first visit. I accept the tenant’s submission that the damage was not caused intentionally.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant is liable to cover the cost of the plumber’s second visit. The plumber’s invoice does not separate the cost of each visit and instead provides a global figure for both visits. I consider it fair and reasonable that the tenant pays half the cost of the total invoice, which is $219.53.
The amount ordered is proved. Filing fee
Because Kevin Stuart Wall, Linda Wall has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4939761 — net $246.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$219.53	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$246.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$246.53

Order

Anne-Marie Bartlett must pay Kevin Stuart Wall and Linda Wall $246.53, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
On 13 April 2024, the tenant advised the landlord that the toilet was leaking.
On 30 April 2024, a plumber visited the property to investigate the issue. The findings of the plumber are in dispute. The plumber applied sealant to the base of the toilet.
The tenant accepts that shortly after the plumber visited the property she steam-mopped the bathroom, which caused the sealant to pull away.
The plumber revisited the property and applied sealant to the base of the toilet again.
The plumber issued the landlord an invoice for a total of $439.06 for both visits.
The landlord claims the tenant is liable to cover the full cost of the invoice for the following reasons: a. The toilet was never leaking; and b. The tenant damaged the sealant after it was applied by the plumber, necessitating the need for a second visit.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
In Kaipo v Clarke & McCarth (DC) TT233/02, the District Court held that, in practical terms, the burden of proof means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I consider the landlord’s claims in turn below. Is the tenant liable to cover the cost of the plumber’s first visit to the property?
Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a landlord to “provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.”
It is well settled that a landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord claims that the toilet was not leaking and therefore, there was not a “defect” that required investigation and repair.
The tenant disputes this and claims the toilet was leaking from its base.
In support of their claim, the landlord gave evidence that the plumber advised them verbally that there was no internal or external leak in the toilet.
The landlord did not call the plumber as a witness, but submitted a copy of their invoice which notes the following: Water around base of toilet. Travelled to site, checked toilet, no cracks in pan but did clean up what appears to be urine on floor around base of toilet. Discussed options with client and he would like toilet resealed around base rather than replaced. Returned to site, sealed around base of toilet and sent photo to client. Returned to site, lifted toilet, dried floor, fitted back in place and resealed. Adjusted and tightened flush pipe, tested and all good.
The landlord highlights the portion of the invoice that records there were no cracks in the pan of the toilet. Therefore, the landlord claims there was no leak.
The landlord gave evidence that they believed that reason there was urine on the floor at the base of the toilet was because the tenant or a person at the property with the tenant’s permission had missed the bowl when urinating.
The tenant strongly denied this allegation and gave evidence that the toilet was leaking from its base due to there being little to no sealant. The tenant submitted a photograph of the base of the toilet taken from before the plumber’s first visit.
The tenant gave evidence that since the base of the toilet has been resealed, it is no longer leaking.
I do not consider that the landlord has proven their claim that there was no defect that required investigation and repair. It is clear from the photograph of the toilet taken by the tenant before the plumber’s first visit, that the sealant around the base was minimal and had significantly eroded.
The invoice from the plumber does not state that there was no leak that required repair. The landlord did not call the plumber as a witness or submit any written communication form the plumber directly confirming this to be the case. The fact that the plumber applied sealant to the base of the toilet after their first visit suggests that this was an issue that required repair. Further, the plumber’s invoice notes that they “discussed options with the client and he would like toilet resealed rather than replaced.” This indicates that there was an issue with the toilet that could be remedied by either resealing or replacing it entirely.
On the balance of probabilities, I consider it more likely than not that the presence of water and what appeared to be urine on the floor at the base of the toilet had most likely leaked from the base of the toilet due to the lack of sealant.
The landlord’s claim that the tenant is liable to pay the cost of the plumber’s first visit is dismissed. Is the tenant liable to cover the cost of the plumber’s second visit to the property?
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.
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the sealant the plumber applied to the base of the toilet after their first visit to the property.
The tenant gave evidence that shortly after the plumber visited the property, they steam mopped the floor in the toilet, which caused the sealant to come away. The tenant gave evidence that they forgot the plumber had recently sealed the base of the toilet.
On the balance of probabilities, I find that the tenant carelessly damaged the sealant that the plumber applied to the base of the toilet after their first visit. I accept the tenant’s submission that the damage was not caused intentionally.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant is liable to cover the cost of the plumber’s second visit. The plumber’s invoice does not separate the cost of each visit and instead provides a global figure for both visits. I consider it fair and reasonable that the tenant pays half the cost of the total invoice, which is $219.53.
The amount ordered is proved. Filing fee
Because Kevin Stuart Wall, Linda Wall has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939761 — Property damage at 5 Salisbury Street, Waikiwi, Invercargill 9810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939761 — Property damage at 5 Salisbury Street, Waikiwi, Invercargill 9810

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions