According to the recently released decision, the applicants bought the house in 2021 and about two years later the waste pump began to malfunction.
The former owner said that when she sold the property everything was in good working order, the decision - which does not name the parties involved - stated.
She didn’t accept the pump had been incorrectly installed but that it had failed because it was old.
She said that it was not part of the property itself but a device that depreciated through constant use, and because the plumber who cleared and eventually replaced the pump found wet wipes caught within the pump chamber, the pump’s deterioration was because of misuse.
Tribunal referee Kelly Johnson was satisfied the applicant had proved it was “more likely than not” that the pump failed as a result of accelerated wear and tear caused by incorrect installation.
He found that the pump was not in reasonable working order at the time the house was sold and ordered the former homeowner to pay $5374 towards the callout and replacement costs.
Johnson said the plumber who cleared the pump on two occasions and eventually replaced it, gave evidence that it should have lasted at least 10 years. When he cleared the pump there was some foreign material, including the wipes, but “normally a pump will handle those materials if it is working correctly”.
Further, the pump was installed wrapped in mesh which included “wires left haphazardly around the blades of the pump”.
It was the plumber’s professional opinion the pump became worn out and eventually failed because of how it was installed.
Johnson noted that a clause within the home’s sale and purchase agreement provided warranties that all plant, equipment, systems or devices which provided any services or amenities to the property were delivered in reasonable working order.
He said the wastewater pump and chamber could be characterised as an “amenity” and while it was accepted that it took up to two years to fail, the pump was not delivered in reasonable working order.
Johnson added that it was the plumber’s opinion that it had been failing for some time.
He was satisfied that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the callouts which at the time appeared to have fixed the problem, plus some of the replacement costs as further compensation for the breach of the warranty.
Johnson said the claim was partially proved, but he did not award costs, including that claimed by the applicants for time off work because of the dispute and time spent preparing for the hearing.
He said costs including filing fees could not be awarded except in “very specific circumstances”.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
