Tribunal Rejects Plumber Callout Claim, Awards Window Latch Damages
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the landlord could not prove a leak existed, so the tenant wasn't responsible for the plumber callout. However, the tenant was found responsible for a broken window latch that occurred during their tenancy.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is not liable for a plumber callout if the landlord cannot prove the existence of a leak, but is liable for damage to premises if the landlord proves the damage occurred during the tenancy.
📖 What the law says
This rule outlines a tenant's responsibilities, including keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and notifying the landlord of any damage or need for repairs. It also states that when the tenancy ends, the tenant must leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
This rule makes a tenant responsible for the actions of anyone they allow into the premises, if those actions would have been a breach of the tenancy agreement had the tenant done them. If someone intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is there, it is assumed the tenant allowed that person to be there.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claim for a plumber callout but awarded damages for a broken window latch.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claim for a plumber callout due to lack of proof of a leak, but awarded damages for a broken window latch, finding the damage occurred during the tenancy.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5188231 1
[2025] NZTT 5188231
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT HUTT VALLEY | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TE AWAKAIRANGI
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] to pay [COMPANY] As Agent For [NAME] $326.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
Description Landlord Tenant Plumber callout $0.00 Window latch $299.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $326.00 Bond $326.00 $4,274.00
2. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,600.00 (6526184-008) immediately apportioned as follows:
[COMPANY] As Agent For [NAME]: $326.00
[NAME]: $4,274.00
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5188231 2
2. The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Compensation for the plumber callout
3. The landlord has claimed the cost of a plumber callout from the tenant. The landlord’s claim is that the tenant advised of a leak that did not exist. However, I am satisfied that the last advice to the landlord from the tenant on 1 July 2024 was that there was no leak visible under the sink. The landlord does not have proof that the tenant advised of a leak after that date and before the plumber arrived on 16 August 2024. The claim must be dismissed.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
4. 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), 41 and 49B RTA.
5. The landlord has claimed that a window latch was broken during the tenancy and glued back on. The latch broke off when the landlord used the latch about 4 days after the tenancy came to an end. He photographed the latch and evidence of it having been glued. The premises was new when the tenant moved in a year before the tenancy ended.
6. I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the damage and gluing of the latch happened during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
7. The amount ordered is the contractor’s cost of repair.
Filing Fee
8. Because the landlord has been successful with the claim the filing fee of $27.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant.
B Smallbone
19 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5188231 3
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5188231 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 for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth 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 tenancy.govt.nz/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 tenancy.govt.nz/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.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5188231 5
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/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 proof that the tenant reported a leak after July 1st.
- The tenant did not advise of a non-existent leak before the plumber was called.
- The landlord provided evidence showing the window latch was damaged and repaired during the tenancy.
- The damage to the window latch exceeded fair wear and tear.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant is not responsible for the plumber callout since the landlord could not prove the existence of a leak.
- The tenant did not provide evidence to disprove their responsibility for the window latch damage.
- The landlord successfully proved the damage to the window latch occurred during the tenancy.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claim for a plumber callout but awarded damages for a broken window latch.
What was the dispute about?
The landlord claimed the tenant falsely reported a leak and was responsible for a broken window latch.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court dismissed the plumber callout claim due to lack of proof but awarded damages for the window latch because the damage was proven to occur during the tenancy.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The landlord's inability to prove the existence of a leak for the plumber callout claim and the evidence showing the window latch was damaged during the tenancy.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partly for and partly against the landlord, dismissing one claim but upholding another.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have clear evidence of damage occurring during the tenancy to hold the tenant accountable.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs of the broken window latch and the landlord's proof of the damage occurring during the tenancy mattered.