What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5051212 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5051212?

Previous Order Dated 03/12/2024 (Ren…: $1,285.71 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5051212?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5051212?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12692797-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5051212 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5051212?

Previous Order Dated 03/12/2024 (Ren…: $1,285.71 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5051212?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5051212?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12692797-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5051212 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5051212 — net $426.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$600.00		Water rates
Rubbish removal (by consent	$862.50		Rubbish removal (by consent
Contribution to one insurance excess	$250.00		Contribution to one insurance excess
Previous order dated 03/12/2024 (rent from 22 November		$1,285.71	Previous order dated 03/12/2024 (rent from 22 November
Total award	$1,712.50	$1,285.71
Net award	$426.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$426.79

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5051212 — net $426.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$600.00		Water rates
Rubbish removal (by consent	$862.50		Rubbish removal (by consent
Contribution to one insurance excess	$250.00		Contribution to one insurance excess
Previous order dated 03/12/2024 (rent from 22 November		$1,285.71	Previous order dated 03/12/2024 (rent from 22 November
Total award	$1,712.50	$1,285.71
Net award	$426.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$426.79

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord and tenant’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned in accordance with the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Representative], represented the trustee company landlord. She was assisted by an interpreter, Ms Lam.
This tenancy of a standalone house began on 16 August 2024. The tenant moved into this property with her children. There was also a unit downstairs occupied by another tenant.
This is the fourth hearing in this matter. At the first hearing on 3 December 2024 the Tribunal made orders: a. terminating the tenancy on the basis that it was uninhabitable due to raw sewage flowing into the property; b. granted possession to the landlord on 10 December 2024 (so as to allow the tenant 7 days to vacate as requested); and c. that rent abate from 22 November 2024 until 10 December 2024.
At the hearing the parties agreed that the tenant had overpaid rent based on the previous Tribunal order. I calculated that rent from 22 November to 3 December 2024 should be refunded to the tenant. Both parties agreed with this amount. This rebate for rent as previously ordered is now quantified and has been incorporated into this order.
The landlord included additional claims in her application and the tenant also filed an application. Those claims were adjourned for further hearing and were heard together today. Onus and evidence
As with all claims that come before the Tribunal, it is for the party bringing the claim to prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
A huge amount of evidence was filed in respect of these claims. For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed and given a the hearing, but the parties can be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence. The landlord’s claims Water rates
The landlord claimed for three water rates invoices, which totalled $638.42 once the fixed charges were removed. The landlord produced copies of the invoices 1 . 1 The landlord also tried to introduce a further water rates invoice but this invoice was outside the scope of the claims as previously confirmed and directed in orders dated 14 April 2025 and 7 August 2024 on the basis that “no further claims would be considered” (see order 7 of adjournment order dated 14 April 2025).
The tenant said that she accepted these charges but that the water rates were complicated as the invoices also covered water for the downstairs unit. She said that the downstairs tenant had paid contributions (estimated by agreement) to the first two invoices before moving out. However she said there were painters in the downstairs unit using water during the last invoice and she should not have to pay for that.
The tenant said that, taking into account the water used by the painters, she would agree to pay $600.00 for all three invoices.
The landlord said that the painters were unlikely to have used much water.
I consider the tenant’s assessment of water use to be reasonable. The landlord did not provide readings for separate meters. In the circumstances the amount of water used by the painters can only be estimated. I consider the tenant’s estimate to be reasonable.
I order that the tenant pay the sum of $600.00 for water rates. Rubbish removal and cleaning
The landlord claimed the sum of $886.50 for rubbish removal and $575.00 for cleaning. The landlord produced a invoice from Gold Bridge Construction Ltd which included rubbish removal, cleaning and a large amount of repairs that are discussed further below.
The landlord said that the cleaning charge was not for cleaning work as such but for the task of picking up rubbish throughout the house for disposal.
The tenant said that she stacked all rubbish carefully and that there was no rubbish anywhere in the house. She said that she agreed that she should pay for the rubbish removal and that she accepted the amount claimed was reasonable given the amount left behind.
The amount claimed by the landlord for rubbish removal is therefore ordered by consent.
Having reviewed the photos provided by the parties I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that any rubbish was left scattered about that needed to be picked up. The claim for cleaning is dismissed. Damage
The landlord has filed a claim seeking compensation for a very large amount of damage, as follows: a. Waterworks invoices for clearing drains as follows: i. Invoice dated 29 November 2024 - $2,977.35 ii. Invoice dated 31 January 2025 - $287.50 b. Compensation for the following additional damage: i. Repairing drainage problems and the copper piping that was removed; ii. Damage to walls from hanging pictures; iii. Broken bathtub (around drain); iv. Kitchen (fridge door) damage; v. Kitchen drawer missing; vi. Downstairs bedroom door glass broken; vii. Garage door motor removed; viii. Damage to garage door; ix. Damaged carpet; x. Stove not working; xi. Damage to two door frames; xii. Damage to wall in other unit; xiii. Broken window glass in the garage; xiv. Tree removal; xv. Shelf holding the hot water cylinder and shelf in the bathroom; xvi. Light fitting damaged in the bathroom; xvii. Dining room light was pulled down and damaged; xviii. Toilet cistern was damaged; and xix. Changing all locks (as keys not returned).
As stated above, the landlord produced an invoice from Gold Bridge Construction Limited for much of the work above. The landlord also produced invoices from Kaida Drainage Limited
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 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. 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.
For the purposes of this decisions is logical to consider the damage under three main hearings: Drainage damage, burglary damage and various miscellaneous damage. Drainage damage
The landlord said that on 22 November 2024 the tenant contacted her in the morning to say that there had been an emergency issue with the drains, that the toilet had been overflowing into the house and that they had contacted a friend who was a plumber who cut the outlet point to the toilet (which is situated on the second storey) and cleaned and disinfected the outside.
The landlord said that she immediately went to meet with this plumber at the property who insisted that she pay a 50% deposit before doing any work. She became suspicious and said that she suspected a scam. She then said that the plumber threatened to pour concrete down the drain if they were not paid. The landlord said that she arranged to meet the plumber the following day but they did not turn up.
The landlord engaged another plumber, Waterworks, who investigated using CCTV and cleared the drains but did not reconnect the toilet or do any additional work at this stage. They produced a report dated 16 December 2024 stating that they had discovered sanitary items, wet wipes and a plastic hose connection in the pipes, causing a blockage.
The landlord said that overnight the copper stack and downpipe had been stolen.
The landlord said that the tenant is responsible for causing a blockage in the drains, the actions of the plumber who attended who cut the pipe as they are a friend, and the loss of the pipes as she did not report any noise when the pipes were taken and so must have been involved somehow.
The landlord claimed the sum of $2,977.35 for the initial drain clearing and investigation, $287.50 for the plumber’s report, together with (portions of) invoices From Gold Bridge Construction Ltd and Kaida Drainage Ltd.
The tenant said that it was approximately 10pm on the night of 21 November 2024 when she discovered sewage flowing out of the toilet and out onto the floor. She said that she tried to call the landlord twice but, having received no answer, googled an emergency plumber who attended, cut the pipe and disinfected the area.
The tenant was adamant that the plumber was not known to her. She explained that the following morning, 22 November 2024, the landlord arrived and she left the landlord to have discussions directly with the plumber. She said that there was a building site next door and the construction workers came over to assist and investigate also.
She denied taking any of the copper piping. She said that her main priority was to have a working toilet for her and her five children and that it would never occur her to take a copper pipe, particularly when contaminated with raw sewage. She said that she stayed at an AirBnb on the night of the 22 November 2024, as arranged by the landlord and so would not have heard noised associated with someone taking copper piping. She said that when she and her children returned it was gone. Burglary damage
The landlord said that the tenant did not return any of the keys at the final inspection on 12 December 2024. She said further that there was a broken window that the tenant agreed to repair.
The landlord said that because the tenant did not repair the window someone was able to enter the property, and cause damage. She explained that whoever entered removed the hot water cylinder from the downstairs tenancy and all associated copper piping, causing associated damage including to the bath upstairs as the piping was torn out. She said that the garage door motor was also stolen and the garage door itself was damaged and a bathroom mirror had been stolen.
The landlord produced an invoices from Gold Bridge Construction Ltd and Kaida Drainage Ltd for repairs.
The landlord also claimed for the cost of replacing the front door key, four internal bedroom door keys and a garage door key ($736.00).
The tenant said she was given keys to the bedroom doors and garage but only one key to the front door. She said that she gave the front door key to the landlord at the inspection on 12 December 2024 and told her that she would leave the other keys in the shed once she had removed all items from the property.
The tenant said that had wanted to fix the window but did not have the funds to have it professionally fixed. She said that it would be unreasonable to hold her responsible for damage caused by people who later broke into the property. Various miscellaneous damage
The landlord also claimed for various damage during the tenancy including: a. Damage to walls from hanging pictures; b. Damage to doors (fridge cupboard); c. Missing kitchen drawer; d. Damaged carpet; e. Stove not working; f. Damage to door frame (one caused during burglary, the other by tenant); g. Tree removal when the tenant removed a grapefruit tree; and h. Damaged light fittings in bathroom and dining room.
The landlord said that all of this damage occurred during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear, and is unrelated to the drainage issues and burglary.
The tenant admitted cutting down the grapefruit tree but said that she did so I the context of the landlord agreeing to her and her partner doing various improvements, such as using mould treatment on the bathroom ceiling and painting, saying that as long as it was improvement the tenant could do as she liked. The tenant said that she removed the grapefruit tree to put up a clothesline.
In relation to the other items the tenant said that the property was in very run down condition to begin with, that she hung only a few hooks on the walls, that she removed the doors from the cupboard that contained the fridge for ease of access, that she accepted causing a stain on the carpet (but the carpet has also become stained from the sewage), that she took the light in the bathroom down to paint the ceiling, the light in the dining room was retractable but was old and wouldn’t retract. Insurance
The landlord has claimed against her insurance for all of the above damage. The landlord’s insurer has paid the following sums: a. Sewage issues on 21 November 2024: $5,980 (less $500 excess) for damage/removal of soil stack from upstairs toilet. b. Kitchen damage: $2,530 (less $500 excess) for damage to vinyl, cabinetry doors. c. Burglary on 12 December 2024: $21,498.78 (less $500 excess) including garage door and garage door motor, window and all plumbing and gas fitting works, copper downpipes, spouting and certification. d. Burglary on 12 December 2024: $34,495.55 (less $500 excess) including carpet replacement, door repair, all plumbing works to replace hot water cylinder and all plumbing and works as required in upstairs bathroom due to damage from hot water cylinder being stolen (all flooring ,wall linings, vanity, bathroom and shower replaced). e. Loss of rent: 31 weeks of rent @750 per week ($23,250). f. The landlord’s claim for all other items including stained carpet and damaged wallpaper were not covered as the damage was considered to be “pre-existing). Discussion Blocked drains
Having reviewed all of the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant caused the blockage in the pipe. In my view it is just as likely that the blockage had built up over time from previous tenants. I say this because: a. This was a short tenancy of less than four months; b. The property was constructed in approximately 1960 and the pipes appear to be original; c. There was another tenant living in the downstairs unit and the drains are all shared; d. One of the drains (connected to the kitchen) regularly became clogged and had to be cleared only four days after the tenants moved in); e. The tenant denied putting sanitary items or wet wipes down the drains; f. There was also a hose connector in the drains contributing to the blockage.
I do not consider that the tenant can be held responsible for the actions of the plumber that attended. The landlord had no evidence proving that they were known to one another. Neither party could even recall the name of the plumber.
Neither do I consider that the tenant can be held responsible for the copper piping being stolen during this period. The tenant was not staying in the property when this occurred. Numerous people had access to the area and there was a building site next door. There were no witnesses.
Accordingly there is no basis on which the tenant should compensate the landlord for the insurance excess amounts ($500) that relate to the blocked drain and associated loss. Burglary
Having reviewed all of the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant is any way responsible for the loss and damage that occurred due to the burglary.
The tenant produced a statement in evidence from her Salvation Army Sustaining Tenancies Social Worker housing support worker who was present for the key handover. I find that the tenant did return the key.
While I accept that the tenant had promised to fix a broken window, and did not do so, it was not the tenant’s responsibility to secure the property. The tenancy had ended. It was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the property was secured. There was not evidence to indicated any involvement by the tenant.
Accordingly there is no basis on which the tenant should compensate the landlord for the insurance excess amounts ($1,000) that relate to the burglary and associated damage. Various miscellaneous damage
Having reviewed all of the evidence I find that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that some damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
I note at the outset that there are very few photos from the start of the tenancy but those show the property to be in tired condition. The wallpaper appears original and is coming away in places. The carpet has some stains and has pulled away from the underlay and paint is chipped on the door frames.
I am not satisfied there has been damage to walls during the tenancy. Although the landlord produced some photos from the end of the tenancy there were very few photos from comparison. In any event, the walls are old and need of refurbishment and so any award would have been reduced substantially to take into account betterment 2 .
I am not satisfied that stove was not working. The damaged light fitting in the dining room (now not retracting) appears to be wear and tear. I accept that the tenant removed the grapefruit tree but I am satisfied that she thought she had permission to do so.
I am satisfied that there has been damage to the carpet during the tenancy. There are additional stains, one of which the tenant accepted. However the carpet was 8-10 years old at the start of the tenancy and, based on the photos, was in very average condition. The carpet has likely reached the end of its 2 A landlord should be left in the position they would have if there had not been a breach (not better or worse off) so where repair have caused an improvement in condition a discount is applied useful life 3 . The landlord said that they have not yet replaced the carpet and did not have an invoice.
I am satisfied that the tenant removed the light in the bathroom and this had to be re-attached, and that the cupboards were removed in the kitchen and had to be reattached, a drawer was missing, there was damaged to a door frame and a window was left broken.
The landlord applied one excess to the damage that has been proved by the landlord ($500) but this also covered some items that have not been proved.
In the circumstances I consider it appropriate and fair to award the landlord one half of the excess amount relating to this damage. I therefore award the landlord compensation of $250.00 for this damage. Compensation for tenant refusing access to the property for inspection on 25 November 2024
The landlord said that shortly after the drainage issue occurred she sent the tenant a text giving her 24 hours notice that she was going to conduct an inspection. However when she turned up and knocked on the door the tenant would not let her in.
She said that she has suffered loss because it took longer for her insurance claim to be processed because she did not have a three monthly inspection report.
The tenant said that the relationship had broken down by this stage and she did not want to speak to the landlord. She said that the landlord was not coming over for the purposes of inspecting urgent repairs.
The landlord’s right of entry is set out in section 48 RTA.
I accept that if the landlord had wanted to enter to effect repairs then 24 hour hours would be the appropriate notice period 4 . If she had wanted to conduct a routine inspection she would have needed to give 48-hours’ notice 5 . However the landlord notice given by the landlord makes no reference to repairs or an inspection. The notice states: “just a giving you another friendly reminder that today is the deadline for you to pay in full your arrear rent. If I don’t see the payment presenting in the account by the end of today, I will come to see you tomorrow listen to your explanation and then to decide the next action. This is the best 3 The Inland Revenue Department IR265 Depreciation Schedules estimate carpet to have a useful life of 8 years 4 Section 48(2)(d) RTA 5 Section 48(2)(b) RTA manner of giving you the chance that I am giving you the 24 hour notice. So tomorrow afternoon I will come to you listen to your explanation and collect my washing machine please be advised”
The RTA does not give the landlord the right to enter to demand an explanation from tenants regarding rent payments. There are other remedies available if the rent is in arrears.
The landlord had no right of entry on the basis of the notice given. The tenant did not have to grant access to the landlord.
This claim is accordingly not proven and is dismissed. The tenant’s claims
The tenant’s filed claims seeking compensation as follows: a. For breach of Healthy Homes standards/failure to maintain as follows: i. Some windows didn’t open and close properly; ii. There were draughts; iii. There was mould in the shower; iv. The extractor fan in the bathroom was broken (the old fan was left up there); and v. Washing machine drained out onto the deck. b. Compensation as they did not have a working toilet for two weeks. c. Compensation for harassment and breach of quiet enjoyment by the landlord. Compensation for lack of toilet
This claim was essentially a quantification of the rent rebate previously ordered. No further order is necessary. Compensation for harassment and breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant withdrew this claim at the hearing and confirmed that she no longer wished to pursue it. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards/failure to maintain
Section 45(1)(bb) provides that landlords must ensure that the property meets the Healthy Homes Standards. Section 45(1)(b) provides that the landlord must ensure that the property is in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant gave evidence about the items above and produced some photos. The landlord produced a Healthy Homes report dated just prior to the start of the tenancy confirming compliance. With respect to the washing machine drainage (not a healthy homes issue but a maintenance issue) both parties produced evidence (video by the tenant and photos by the landlord) but neither confirmed the position either way.
In the circumstances I do not consider that there is enough evidence to find these claims proved. The claims in respect of Healthy homes/maintenance are dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
Neither party has been particularly successful in their claims but they have each successfully defended the other party’s claim.
In that respect I consider them both to be the successful party, in defending the claim filed against them, and so I have made an order suppressing both parties’ names pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5051212 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5051212 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions