What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5259024?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5259024?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259024?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259024?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12186653-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5259024?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5259024?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259024?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259024?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12186653-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25a Princes Street, Pukekohe, Auckland 2120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5259024 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend by the video link provided in the Notice of Hearing and did not answer two calls to her mobile during the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation of $5,250.00 for damage to the premises and neighbouring premises. The landlord says that this unit and a downstairs unit suffered flood damage because the tenant left a tap running.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. The neighbouring property, while owned by the same landlord, is not part of this tenancy. Any part of the claim which relates to the neighbouring tenancy is dismissed. See MacDonald v Dodds (DC Hamilton CIV-2009-019-1534, 26 February 2010, Bribanc Property Management Ltd v Hayman TT Auckland, 07/3984/AK, 9 January 2008, Phillips v taylor DC Whanganui TT424/99, 25 January 2000.

A landlord must prove that damage to the tenancy 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 $5,250 being an insurance excess. The rent was $580.00 per week, so the limit of the tenant’s liability for careless damage is $2,320.00.

It seems that a tradesperson was called in response to the neighbouring tenant’s concerns about water in their property (25b Princess St). A report provided by the landlord records: “Apon arrival it appears the second-floor toilet room is the source of the water ingress to the first floor bedroom, kitchen and garage below.”

The landlord also provided an estimate for repairs to both units and identified that there was some water damage to both units.

The landlord said that the damage was caused by the tenant leaving the tap on, not a plumbing issue. She said that the tradesperson had told her the tenant left a tap on. I asked why that wasn’t in the report, and she responded that the tenant acknowledged that they left the tap on.

If the tap had been left on, I would have expected that to be recorded in the investigation report. I would also expect the sink overflow drain to have prevented any spilling or flooding if the tap had been left on. The photograph of the vanity for the upstairs unit does not show evidence of swelling or exposure to moisture.

The applicant has not provided evidence to establish that it is more likely than not that damage has occurred to the premises because of the tenant’s carelessness.

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend by the video link provided in the Notice of Hearing and did not answer two calls to her mobile during the hearing.

The landlord claimed $5,250 being an insurance excess. The rent was $580.00 per week, so the limit of the tenant’s liability for careless damage is $2,320.00.

The landlord also provided an estimate for repairs to both units and identified that there was some water damage to both units.

The applicant has not provided evidence to establish that it is more likely than not that damage has occurred to the premises because of the tenant’s carelessness.

The application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259024 — Mould & damp at 25a Princes Street, Pukekohe, Auckland 2120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259024 — Mould & damp at 25a Princes Street, Pukekohe, Auckland 2120

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