What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4937019?

The tribunal order states: Christine Fenton to pay Milburn Properties Limited $296.05 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4937019?

Property Damage: $296.05 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4937019?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4937019?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11769329-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4937019?

The tribunal order states: Christine Fenton to pay Milburn Properties Limited $296.05 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4937019?

Property Damage: $296.05 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4937019?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4937019?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11769329-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 6, 19 Hammond Street, Hamilton Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4937019 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4937019 — net $296.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$296.05	Repairs
Net award	$296.05
Bond	$296.05
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$296.05

The landlord attended the remote hearing on 29 April 2025 .

The tenant was contacted by telephone. The tenant said that she no longer wished to be involved in the hearing. I advised the tenant that the hearing would proceed in any event. The tenant said that she did not wish to be involved, and the call was terminated.

This matter had been part heard on 30 October 2024 and 4 February 2025.

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord was not insured for tenant damage.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

A brick wall at the front of the premises was damaged during the tenancy.

The landlord said that the damage had been caused by the tenant just prior to the end of the tenancy. The landlord said that the tenant had come onto the property with a trailer and had hit the wall, damaging the brickwork. The fence was damaged in two places. Outside the tenant's flat and the other on the end of the fence.

Prior to the first hearing of this matter before the Tribunal, the tenant carried out repairs to the fence. The repairs were carried out without the knowledge of the landlord. The landlord said that the work had not been carried out to an acceptable standard. The landlord provided a report from a builder which indicated that the costs to return the brick fence to its original condition would be $800.00. The landlord said that if her claim was proven before the Tribunal, she would be prepared to accept as compensation the remaining balance of the bond.

The tenant’s evidence at the previous hearing was that the work had been completed by the tenant and that the landlord had been happy with the work that had been carried out.

Having considered the evidence of the parties, I think it is more likely than not that the damage was caused by the tenant. The costs to return the landlord’s fence to its original pre damaged condition are as shown in the quote provided by Richardson Builders. In those circumstances, I am prepared to order, based on the landlords offer, compensation to the landlord of $296.05. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4937019 — net $296.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$296.05	Repairs
Net award	$296.05
Bond	$296.05
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$296.05

Order

Christine Fenton to pay Milburn Properties Limited $296.05 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $296.05 (3207116-024) to Milburn Properties Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing on 29 April 2025 .
The tenant was contacted by telephone. The tenant said that she no longer wished to be involved in the hearing. I advised the tenant that the hearing would proceed in any event. The tenant said that she did not wish to be involved, and the call was terminated.
This matter had been part heard on 30 October 2024 and 4 February 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord was not insured for tenant damage.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
A brick wall at the front of the premises was damaged during the tenancy.
The landlord said that the damage had been caused by the tenant just prior to the end of the tenancy. The landlord said that the tenant had come onto the property with a trailer and had hit the wall, damaging the brickwork. The fence was damaged in two places. Outside the tenant's flat and the other on the end of the fence.
Prior to the first hearing of this matter before the Tribunal, the tenant carried out repairs to the fence. The repairs were carried out without the knowledge of the landlord. The landlord said that the work had not been carried out to an acceptable standard. The landlord provided a report from a builder which indicated that the costs to return the brick fence to its original condition would be $800.00. The landlord said that if her claim was proven before the Tribunal, she would be prepared to accept as compensation the remaining balance of the bond.
The tenant’s evidence at the previous hearing was that the work had been completed by the tenant and that the landlord had been happy with the work that had been carried out.
Having considered the evidence of the parties, I think it is more likely than not that the damage was caused by the tenant. The costs to return the landlord’s fence to its original pre damaged condition are as shown in the quote provided by Richardson Builders. In those circumstances, I am prepared to order, based on the landlords offer, compensation to the landlord of $296.05. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4937019 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 19 Hammond Street, Hamilton Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4937019 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 19 Hammond Street, Hamilton Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions