How much money was awarded in case 5034368?

Rent Arrears: $191.43 awarded to landlord; Blinds: $137.50 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $64.40 awarded to landlord; Electrical By Consent: $924.98 awarded to landlord; Glass Window By Consent: $431.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Holder By Consent: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Light Cover: $189.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034368?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11947963-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5034368?

Rent Arrears: $191.43 awarded to landlord; Blinds: $137.50 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $64.40 awarded to landlord; Electrical By Consent: $924.98 awarded to landlord; Glass Window By Consent: $431.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Holder By Consent: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Light Cover: $189.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034368?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11947963-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5034368 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5034368 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034368 — net $237.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears by consent	$191.43	Rent arrears by consent
Repairs: Glass window by consent	$431.00	Repairs: Glass window by consent
Repairs: Electrical by consent	$924.98	Repairs: Electrical by consent
Repairs: Toilet holder by consent	$92.00	Repairs: Toilet holder by consent
Repairs: Blinds	$137.50	Repairs: Blinds
Replace furnishings: Light cover	$189.75	Replace furnishings: Light cover
Repairs: Curtains	$64.40	Repairs: Curtains
Net award	$237.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$237.49

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agents For The Owners: Quang Buon Tieu Commercial Trust $237.49 immediately, being rent arrears to 24 July 2024.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,793.57 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agents For The Owners: Quang Buon Tieu Commercial Trust immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The parties had attended mediation and reached agreement regarding the payment of rent arrears, glass, electrical and toilet holder repairs.

The tenancy began on 18 June 2016 and ended on 24 July 2024. A final inspection was conducted in July 2024 by different Property Managers and the Tenant.

In September 2024, a new Property Manager reported other damages the Tenant submits he was never made aware of by the first two Property Managers. He understood the damages had all been resolved with the previous Property Managers.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: light bulb covers.

The Landlord claimed $189.75 to replace two light covers in the bedroom and bathroom. A photograph was provided of a missing light cover and the exit report referred to two missing light covers.

The Tenant claimed they tried to find covers to match the rest of the house but could not find any. The Tenant understood these light covers were covered in the electrical repair.

In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the Tenant is responsible for the replacement of two light covers. They acknowledged that they tried to find matching covers. The light covers were also noted as missing in the bathroom and stairs in the exit inspection report. The evidence was consistent.

For these reasons, the amounts ordered are proved.

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.

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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: wall damage, blind and curtain damage. Painting and plastering

The Landlord claimed $1900.00 plus GST for repainting and plastering 11 walls. The Landlord in their oral evidence submitted the damage was beyond reasonable wear and tear. They referred to the garage walls, internal bedroom doors that needed repainting due to a crack in one door and two new doors the Tenant replaced which were not painted.

An entry inspection report dated 2015, an exit inspection report, photographs of walls taken on 11 October 2024 and an email of the quote provided to repaint and plaster the walls dated 20 September 2025 was provided by the Landlord to support the claim.

Within the exit inspection report, there were photographs of smaller gouges. It was unclear where the 11 walls claimed in the quote were that required repair. The notes in the exit report indicated the damages which required possible painting as follows: A) Bedroom 1- entry door has dent and bedroom wall had discoloured squares B) Bedroom 3- repair mark behind the door C) Stairs side skirtings and handrails needed repaint however it was noted the handrails were wear and tear D) Repair mark on lefthand side garage, holes in ceiling, dent on wall on right hand side.

The additional photographs which were titled ‘photographs taken today’ showed further nicks and scratches on the walls but there was no information about where these were located or if these were on the same wall or room. These were dated 11 October 2024.

The quote provided for the repairs was dated 20 September 2024 from Pawa Developments was an email that stated ‘Plaster and repaint 11 walls $1900.00 plus GST- ‘

The Tenant did not agree with the repairs. He submitted that he had attended a walk through at the end of the tenancy with the two previous Property Managers and a painter. They showed him and the painter approximately six walls that needed repainting and areas requiring gib stopping. The Tenant had these areas repaired and painted. On the last walkthrough, the Property Managers were happy with the repairs so he let the Painter go.

The Landlord replied that he was unaware of any discussions between the previous two Property Managers and the Tenant however he would review the correspondence.

In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant should not be liable for the repainting and plastering the walls. The Landlord has not provided sufficient or reliable evidence to support the claim. The quote provided lacked an itemised breakdown of the specific rooms or surfaces that required repair and the Landlord referred to damaged doors during their oral evidence however the quote itself did not mention door painting. confirm the Landlords oral evidence that part of this included the repainting of doors. Without that level of detail, I am unable to assess whether the cost incurred was reasonable.

The Landlord also relied on an exit inspection report. However, this report was undated and unsigned by the previous Property Managers who conducted the exit inspection , and therefore cannot be considered reliable evidence. Furthermore, while the report made general reference to damages in the notes, it did not quantify or specify the extent or nature of those damages in a way that would justify the amount claimed.

I accept the Tenant’s evidence that a final walkthrough was conducted with the previous two Property Managers and that the Tenant undertook repairs as discussed during that meeting. There was no evidence presented by the Landlord of any disagreement at that time or indication that further work was required. When the Tenant submitted the previous Managers were satisfied with the repairs he undertook, the Landlord responded at the hearing that he was unaware of the conversations the Tenant had with the previous Property Managers. He would review his notes. I find however that the Landlord ought to have made reasonable inquiries with the Property Managers before submitting this claim to the Tribunal. Given that the claimed damage related to matters allegedly discussed and resolved during the exit process, it was incumbent upon the Landlord to ensure that he had a full understanding of the circumstances—particularly whether the issues had already been addressed to the satisfaction of the agency at the time. The failure to obtain or present any evidence of these conversations, or to clarify the Property Managers’ positions before initiating proceedings, undermines the reliability of the Landlord’s claim.

The subsequent identification of issues by a different Property Manager, after the tenancy had ended, cannot be relied upon in the absence of reliable evidence.

It is the Landlord’s responsibility, as the applicant, to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, that standard has not been met.

The claim is dismissed. Burn mark on deck

The Landlord claimed $320.00 plus GST for a substantial burn mark on the veranda which they suspected was due to the Tenants metal smoker on the deck. They provided a photograph of the burn after the exit inspection, the entry inspection report and the quote from Pawa Development. The Landlord did not accept that vandals caused it.

The Tenant submitted he did not cause the damage. He had a smoker on the veranda during the tenancy but that was placed in a different spot on the deck and it was free standing. He was not made aware of the burn mark at the Final inspection report either. He suspected there was heavy foot traffic in the alleyway adjacent to the property that could have caused it.

In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to prove this damage was caused during the tenancy. There was no correspondence from the previous Property Managers to indicate the burn mark was present at the end of the tenancy, the photograph of the burnt deck was taken after Tenant vacated and the exit inspection report made no reference to the burnt deck either.

The claim is dismissed. Blind repair

The Landlord claims $1,250.00 plus GST for the replacement of six damaged blinds. The Landlord initially obtained a quote for $280.00 plus GST to repair the blinds; however, upon further inspection by a curtain repair professional, it was determined that the blinds were unrepairable due to their age and structural condition. The Landlord provided an email dated 20 September 2024 from the repairer, which stated that “the structure of the blinds was too old” and they were not able to be repaired. Some blinds had been removed and placed in a cupboard, while others had come off the roller mechanism.

The Tenant disputed the full replacement charge. He accepted responsibility for the original repair cost of $280.00 plus GST and stated that during his 9-year tenancy, approximately five of the blinds had stopped functioning. He attributed this to general wear and tear. The Tenant admitted he did not notify the Landlord of the blinds' condition during the tenancy but considered that $300.00 would be a fair contribution toward the cost, in line with the original quote.

In considering the evidence, I find that the Tenant is partially liable for the condition of the blinds. The Tenant acknowledged responsibility for some damage and had agreed to pay the repair amount of $280.00 plus GST. However, it is also relevant that the blinds were approximately 9 years old. The accepted normal life expectancy for blinds is around 8 years, and I consider that the deterioration was largely the result of wear and tear due to age and prolonged use.

Given this, I find that the Tenant should contribute a depreciated amount. I consider that 10% of the $1,250.00 (plus GST) replacement cost is a fair and reasonable contribution, to reflect both the Tenant’s limited liability and the age of the blinds.

Accordingly, I order the Tenant to pay $125.00 plus GST in relation to the blinds. Curtain repair

The Landlord claims $560.00 plus GST for damage to the curtains, specifically torn inner linings. In support of this claim, the Landlord provided photographs showing the condition of the curtains, a quote from a repair professional, and the exit inspection report noting the damage.

The Tenant disputes liability for the damage. The Tenant stated that the curtains were stained at the bottom and deteriorated due to condensation, which they attributed to the property having single-glazed windows. The Tenant argued that the curtains were already in poor condition due to environmental factors beyond their control.

After considering the evidence, I find the Tenant is partially liable for the curtain damage. The exit inspection report and photographs support the Landlord’s claim that there was tearing to the curtain lining at the end of the tenancy. While the Tenant raised concerns about condensation-related wear, this explanation does not fully account for the nature of the damage. The Tenant's response was not directly responsive to the issue of torn linings, and I find it to be somewhat evasive.

However, I also take into account the age of the curtains. The Landlord confirmed that they were approximately 9 years old. The normal life expectancy for curtains is around 8 years. Given the age of the curtains and the likelihood that they had already experienced significant wear and tear, I find it appropriate to apply depreciation.

I award 10% of the claimed amount to reflect the reduced value of the curtains due to age and use. The amount payable by the Tenant is therefore $56.00 plus GST. The amounts ordered are proved.

As both parties have been substantially successful, the Landlord shall pay their own filing fee and name suppression is granted to the Tenant.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034368 — net $237.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears by consent	$191.43	Rent arrears by consent
Repairs: Glass window by consent	$431.00	Repairs: Glass window by consent
Repairs: Electrical by consent	$924.98	Repairs: Electrical by consent
Repairs: Toilet holder by consent	$92.00	Repairs: Toilet holder by consent
Repairs: Blinds	$137.50	Repairs: Blinds
Replace furnishings: Light cover	$189.75	Replace furnishings: Light cover
Repairs: Curtains	$64.40	Repairs: Curtains
Net award	$237.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$237.49

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agents For The Owners: Quang Buon Tieu Commercial Trust $237.49 immediately, being rent arrears to 24 July 2024.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,793.57 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agents For The Owners: Quang Buon Tieu Commercial Trust immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The parties had attended mediation and reached agreement regarding the payment of rent arrears, glass, electrical and toilet holder repairs.

The tenancy began on 18 June 2016 and ended on 24 July 2024. A final inspection was conducted in July 2024 by different Property Managers and the Tenant.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: light bulb covers.

The Landlord claimed $189.75 to replace two light covers in the bedroom and bathroom. A photograph was provided of a missing light cover and the exit report referred to two missing light covers.

The Tenant claimed they tried to find covers to match the rest of the house but could not find any. The Tenant understood these light covers were covered in the electrical repair.

For these reasons, the amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: wall damage, blind and curtain damage. Painting and plastering

The quote provided for the repairs was dated 20 September 2024 from Pawa Developments was an email that stated ‘Plaster and repaint 11 walls $1900.00 plus GST- ‘

The Landlord replied that he was unaware of any discussions between the previous two Property Managers and the Tenant however he would review the correspondence.

The subsequent identification of issues by a different Property Manager, after the tenancy had ended, cannot be relied upon in the absence of reliable evidence.

It is the Landlord’s responsibility, as the applicant, to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, that standard has not been met.

The claim is dismissed. Burn mark on deck

The claim is dismissed. Blind repair

Accordingly, I order the Tenant to pay $125.00 plus GST in relation to the blinds. Curtain repair

I award 10% of the claimed amount to reflect the reduced value of the curtains due to age and use. The amount payable by the Tenant is therefore $56.00 plus GST. The amounts ordered are proved.

As both parties have been substantially successful, the Landlord shall pay their own filing fee and name suppression is granted to the Tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034368 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034368 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions