Asset managers claim that the aquarium that caused the flood was used at "their own risk"

A property manager has tried in vain to free himself from all liability in the event of an aquatic disaster on a rental property.

Tenants Kristopher and Esther Simak have received more than US $ 1,000 in compensation for the cleaning costs of an aquarium spill that flooded a property in Auckland.

The property management company Propertyscouts tried to assert that the Pakuranga aquarium was to be used "to [the tenants’] own risk ", according to a decision of the Rental Court rendered on November 8th.

The cost of cleaning up the spill reached $ 1530, with professional cleaners called late at night to lift carpets and extract floodwaters.

READ MORE:
* What are property managers doing?
* The rental up / down ends in protest outside the tenant's place of work
* The Property Manager declares that his family has rented rooms prone to flooding in a garage

The large aquarium was part of a wall between the dining room and the living room.

But the tank was only partially filled when the Simaks moved in and his pump and filter were turned off.

Kristopher Simak told the court that the aquarium had finally become fertile ground for mosquitoes.

According to property manager John Leyland, the water had not been replaced for two years.

Simak has it cleaned, refilled, and "thoroughly tested", the tank would contain more water.

For six months, everything went smoothly, until late at night when he heard the sound of the water flowing.

He woke up to find water "gushing on the floor of the dining room," said court arbitrator Gillian Guptill.

A seal in the tank had broken and a "severe" flood had occurred.

Guptill said the Simaks were worried that the water would seep into the rental properties below.

They called a carpet cleaning company that lifted the carpets and extracted the floodwater that night.

The carpet cleaning company's machines have been on the property for two days, Guptill said.

But when the bill was accepted, Propertyscouts refused to reimburse the Simaks.

Arbitrator Gillian said that Leyland asserted that tenants were liable for the damages "due to the use of the aquarium at their own risk".

But Leyland also admitted that Propertyscouts had not warned the Simaks not to use the tank.

"There was no evidence that the tenants caused the damage to the aquarium in a careless or intentional manner," Guptill said.

"So I find that the damage was normal wear and tear."