What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5173711?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5173711?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5173711?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Property damage, Leaks, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5173711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11947447-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5173711?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5173711?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5173711?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Property damage, Leaks, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5173711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11947447-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2A, 14 Beaumont Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5173711 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Introduction

This matter involves a dispute over alleged water damage to the ceiling of a commercial unit located beneath a residential apartment at 14 Beaumont Street.

The tenant named on the residential tenancy agreement is Ms Pipornetti. Although she is the legal tenant, it is not in dispute that she never resided at the property. Instead, her 75-year-old mother occupied the apartment.

The landlord was represented at the hearing by Mr Mendoza, the senior property manager responsible for managing the property. Both Ms Pipornetti and Mr Mendoza attended the hearing and provided oral submissions and supporting evidence.

The dispute centres on the cause of water damage to the ceiling of the commercial unit below.

The landlord’s case, presented by Mr Mendoza, alleges that the damage was the result of water overflowing from the laundry tub in the tenant’s unit. In contrast, Ms Pipornetti maintains that the cause of the leak was a maintenance issue—specifically, a leak from the hot water tap under the laundry tub, which she argues was due to faulty fittings. In other words, Ms Pipornetti did not concede that her mother had left the water running, causing the laundry tub to overflow and damage the commercial unit below..

The landlord did not pursue an insurance claim for the damage because the body corporate's insurance policy carried an excess of $5,000. Since the total amount of damage claimed—$2,435.66, including both the repair costs to the commercial unit and the plumber’s inspection fee—was significantly below the excess threshold, any claim against the policy would not be economical. The landlord instead sought recovery directly from the tenant. Mr Mendoza’s case

Mr Mendoza's case rests heavily on a plumber’s report from Plumb First Ltd. The water damage was discovered on 6 January 2025. The report describes the plumber’s findings: Attended the job. Investigated the leak from the ceiling of the shoe shop. Removed the ceiling tiles and found the water was leaking from the concrete floor. Went into the 2A/14 and found the laundry tub was flooded and water was all over the stuff under the tub. Checked everything no leak was found from the laundry tub or hot water cylinder. Called the Manager and explained the leak was from the overflow from the laundry tub.

Mr Mendoza also submitted photographs showing wet surfaces in and around the laundry cabinet and argued that these images supported the overflow theory, citing watermarks and moisture on the interior cabinet door and shelving.

He maintained that the apartment was inspected both before the tenancy commenced and after it ended, with no plumbing issues reported in either inspection. Additionally, Mr Mendoza emphasised that as a property manager, he relies on professionals’ opinions and did not conduct his own technical assessment. His position is that the professional conclusion of overflow, combined with physical evidence of water exposure, supports the claim that the tenant—or her mother—left a tap running, leading to the damage below. Ms Pipornetti’s case

Ms Pipornetti firmly denied that the water damage resulted from carelessness. She submitted a video recorded on 20 February 2025, demonstrating that when the hot water tap under the laundry tub is even slightly opened, it drips. She explained that this video was taken shortly after she was informed of the incident, approximately 45 days after the leak was discovered. In her view, this shows that the leak was due to poor maintenance of the tap unit, not misuse by her mother. She also noted that the tap features a double overflow prevention system, making a true overflow unlikely. Mr Mortimore from Precision Plumbing 2010 Ltd said in an email to Ms Pipornetti: “... but the bones of it are that the tub unit has an overflow, and the tub cannot overflow even if the plug is in and the tap is left running.’

She provided a timeline to support her case: on 6 January 2025, she and her mother were away in Rewa when they were contacted by the building manager about the leak. They returned promptly, and her mother opened the apartment for the plumber and building manager. According to Ms Pipornetti, there was no visible water in the apartment when they arrived, and no one observed water actively overflowing. She argued that the actual cause may have been a slow leak absorbed by the carpet near the hot water cylinder over time, which explains why no standing water was visible. She also criticised the delay in communication and expressed frustration that the landlord’s plumber did not engage in a joint inspection with her own plumber to clarify the issue. The law

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. See sections 40(2)(a) 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. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. Analysis

The core issue in this matter is whether the landlord has proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the water damage to the commercial unit below was caused by the tenant’s mother leaving a tap running, resulting in an overflow from the laundry tub. The landlord’s case is based on a plumber’s report from the 6 January 2025 inspection and supporting photographs taken on the same day. The report indicates the laundry tub was flooded and attributes the water damage to overflow, although it notes no leaks were found from the tub or hot water cylinder at the time of inspection.

The photographs show some water drops inside and around the laundry cabinet, and there is evidence of water pooling in the commercial unit below. However, the volume of water on the floor of the shop does not appear extensive. There is no suggestion in the evidence that water was actively overflowing from the laundry tub when the apartment was accessed. Indeed, it appears the water had already stopped flowing by the time the plumber and building manager arrived, which undermines the landlord’s theory that a tap had been left running continuously. If a significant overflow had been occurring, one would reasonably expect to find a larger volume of water inside the apartment, and clear ongoing water flow at the time of access.

Ms Pipornetti submitted a video taken approximately 45 days after the incident, which she said demonstrates a leak from the hot water tap. While I have viewed the video, I place no weight on this evidence. It was not contemporaneous with the incident, and the condition of the fittings may have changed in the intervening time. Furthermore, the video does not directly explain the water observed in the commercial unit or establish a clear alternative source of the damage. For these reasons, I do not consider that the video assisted me in reaching a conclusion.

Nevertheless, I find the landlord has not provided persuasive or conclusive evidence on the balance of probabilities that the tenant’s mother left a tap running and caused the overflow. There is no direct evidence to support that allegation—only an inference drawn from the plumber’s observations. There was no witness who observed water flowing from the laundry tub at the time Ms Pipornetti’s mother opened the door for the plumber and the property manager to enter the premises to inspect, and no documentation establishing that the tap had been left on. This absence of direct or compelling circumstantial evidence is not helpful to the landlord’s case. Conclusion

Having considered all the evidence and submissions, I find that the landlord has not proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage to the commercial unit was caused by an overflow from the laundry tub due to the tenant’s mother leaving a tap running.

While I acknowledge that the plumber’s report points to an overflow, the absence of direct evidence of water actively flowing at the time of entry into the apartment, the relatively small volume of water observed on the shop floor, and the lack of any supporting witness statements leave too many possibilities. The landlord bears the burden of proof, and in this case, that burden has not been discharged.

Accordingly, the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Ms Pipornetti’s cross application

Ms. Pipornetti’s application was based on her denial of responsibility for the water damage to the commercial unit.

There is no cause of action for me to consider.

Accordingly, the tenant’s counterclaim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Introduction

This matter involves a dispute over alleged water damage to the ceiling of a commercial unit located beneath a residential apartment at 14 Beaumont Street.

The dispute centres on the cause of water damage to the ceiling of the commercial unit below.

Accordingly, the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Ms Pipornetti’s cross application

Ms. Pipornetti’s application was based on her denial of responsibility for the water damage to the commercial unit.

There is no cause of action for me to consider.

Accordingly, the tenant’s counterclaim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5173711 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 2A, 14 Beaumont Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5173711 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 2A, 14 Beaumont Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions