Tenancy Tribunal Dismisses Landlord's Flood Damage Claim
📌 In brief
In a recent Tenancy Tribunal case, a landlord claimed compensation for flood damage. However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim because there wasn't enough evidence to show that the tenants were responsible for leaving the kitchen tap on.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord must provide sufficient evidence to prove that a tenant's actions caused damage on the balance of probabilities.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claim for compensation due to insufficient evidence.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a landlord's claim for compensation due to insufficient evidence proving that the tenant's actions caused the flood damage. The key issue was the timing of the water being turned on and off by the local council.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5429537 1
[2026] NZTT 5429537
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $550.00 (3439104-011) to [NAME] and [NAME] immediately.
2. The application is dismissed.
Description Landlord Tenant Total award Bond $550.00
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing held on 17 June 2026 by video.
2. The landlord has applied for compensation of $550.00 which is the insurance excess for an accepted insurance claim related to a flood at the premises.
3. The flood occurred on the evening of 28 January 2025 or the morning of 29 January 2025. The tenant reported the flood to the landlord as soon as it was
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5429537 2
discovered on the morning of 29 January 2025. The flood was in the kitchen area and went through to the living room. The water which caused the flood came from the kitchen tap.
4. The tenants had been advised by the local Council that the water mains would be shut off for road works to be carried out. The water was to be shut off overnight and would be turned on by morning. There was no evidence from the Council in relation to when the water was turned off and on.
5. The landlord submits that the tenants left the kitchen tap in the on position so that when the water was turned on by Council it caused the flood.
6. The tenant denies that the tap was left in the on position. Instead, it was submitted that there had been pressure issues with that tap, although this was not reported to the landlord.
7. A couple of weeks after the flood the landlord arranged for a plumber to look at the tap due to the concerns raised by the tenants. The landlord says that no work was required by the plumber but no evidence from the plumber was submitted.
8. The tenants say that the tap was not on when they went to sleep and at that stage the water had not yet been turned off.
9. The key issue is when the water was switched off and back on. This evidence would assist in determining whether the flooding and resulting damage was caused by the tenant’s carelessness. If the water had been turned back on when the tenants were awake they would have likely known that the water was running. If it occurred when they were asleep it is not reasonable for them to hear the running water.
10. There is a possibility that trapped air or the pressure of the water being turned on by the Council may have contributed to the situation but there was no evidence from either the landlord or the tenant in relation to this.
11. The onus is on the landlord to establish on the balance of probabilities that the tenants’ actions caused the damage. As stated above, evidence from the Council or the plumber may have assisted but was not produced.
12. On the evidence before the Tribunal the landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant’s actions were careless and caused the damage.
13. The landlord’s application for compensation is dismissed.
14. The remaining bond in dispute is released to the tenants.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5429537 3
[NAME]
17 June 2026
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5429537 4
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order, or the failure to make an order, where the amount in dispute on appeal is
less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work, or the failure to make an order, where the value of the
work in dispute on appeal is less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit [NAME]/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi [NAME]/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.[NAME]/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.[NAME]/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.[NAME]/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5429537 5
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: [NAME]/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord did not provide enough evidence to show the tenant's actions caused the flood damage.
- The landlord failed to provide evidence from the Council about when the water was turned off and on.
- The landlord failed to provide evidence from the plumber about the tap.
- The tenants reported the flood as soon as they discovered it.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord argued that the tenants left the kitchen tap on, causing the flood when water was restored.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claim for compensation due to flood damage.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenants were responsible for causing flood damage by leaving the kitchen tap on.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the landlord failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the tenants were careless and caused the damage.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was the timing of when the water was turned on and off by the local council, which could have contributed to the flood.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have strong evidence to prove their case, especially if they are claiming compensation for damage.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence from the local council about when the water was turned on and off would have been helpful but was not provided.