tap running house flooded, who pays?

[Meehole]

I read with the insurance excess that some landlords had increased their excesses to $1000 or more so that if the tenant was found liable and the landlord awarded costs for the excess it allowed them a greater amount which could cover other damage. The adjudicator at our hearing supposedly likes to try and even things out to be fair, however, he did say that if the damage could be proved to have been caused by the tenant then there was a higher chance of being given the cost of the excess awarded.
In my case I had a photo from 4 Dec showing some wear (created on 26 Sept when they moved in as not there before but no photos just previous tenants letter - he's insurance broker) and then a photo taken on 25 Feb when they moved out with 2 holes in carpet. Could see brown backing on carpet. Still waiting on result of hearing as at today.

[DaveW]

you are right.

I called tenancy line, they said the landlord pays everything including excess fee and related agent fee if the landlord can't approve if it is careless damage. Refer to "Osaki" case.

I asked "this is the second accident in two weeks, shows the patent of careless. Can the landlord apply for terminating the fix term tenancy?" They said "no, only if the tenant agreed with it."

I asked, "If the tenant disagreed and upset, again accidentally left tap running and house flooded Who pays?" they answered, "the landlord pays."

I said, "but the landlord hasn't done anything wrong, why the landlord has to pay?" they answered, "if the landlord cannot agreed, apply to the tribunal."

How vulnerable the landlords are! They can be easily shattered to pieces simply by the amulet of "careless" .

You should lodge to TT as soon as possible, the tenant cannot have things flipping onto taps.
It's good you have a fixed term tenancy so you can wait that out and not renew for another term.

This is a reason why some investors prefer commercial property - the tenants are businesses and take on more responsibility, no TT.
Or higher end residential - generally a better quality tenant.
Or, short term rent by the room - more hands on but more control by the LL also.

[BigWal_v2]

Unfortunately, the High Court (not just the TT) is absolutely clear on this one.

If it is accidental damage, the landlord pays. This includes any insurance excess.

Just go to the TT search form here, enter 'Osaki' and 'excess' in the Keyword Search field, and read a few of the decisions.

Second one I found - Reason 10.

The High Court has held that the principle in Osaki applies to any insurance excess

Also, it's probably worth noting any professional / commercial people posting on this thread who say that you should claim the insurance excess from the tenant.

[Perry]

If it is accidental damage, the landlord pays. This includes any insurance excess.

Avis, Budget, Europ, Hertz et al rental car companies next?

[DaveW]

I would still pursue a case against the tenant with the TT.
There are other costs besides insurance excess, including initial cleaning.
The tenant won't like even to have to pay for that.
And they might think they will have some black flag against their name.
My main point is you don't want the tenant to think you are a pushover. They may even turn apologetic and make some good in order to try and have a new term of tenancy? Not that you would want that but let them think otherwise.
Yes it kinda sucks that residential tenants have all the protection but that's the kind of country we live in.
Learn from this and develop a stringent tenant screening process. Choose your tenants and properties very carefully. You are operating a business and that's the way the TT sees it.

If your tenants are also a business (commercial) then it's a different beast. No TT.

[Perry]

You are operating a business and that's the way the TT sees it.

That can be taken at least two ways - possibly more.

[BigWal_v2]

I would still pursue a case against the tenant with the TT.

Fair comment Dave - it's nice to have their names in the system for other people to see (particularly for egregious cases)

[hacona]

Thanks Dave - but I am afraid if I pursue a case against the tenant, the tenant will 'accidentally' burn the house.

[DaveW]

Thanks Dave - but I am afraid if I pursue a case against the tenant, the tenant will 'accidentally' burn the house.

Is this house in Otara?