What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5085514?

The tribunal order states: Venkataramaiah Koonapareddy must pay Viaduct City Rentals Limited $849.37

How much money was awarded in case 5085514?

Property Damage: $849.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5085514?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5085514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11714554-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5085514?

The tribunal order states: Venkataramaiah Koonapareddy must pay Viaduct City Rentals Limited $849.37

How much money was awarded in case 5085514?

Property Damage: $849.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5085514?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5085514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11714554-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 711, 53 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5085514 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5085514 — net $849.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$849.37	Repairs
Net award	$849.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$849.37

Order

Venkataramaiah Koonapareddy must pay Viaduct City Rentals Limited $849.37 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 7 April 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy commenced on 15 March 2021 and was current as of the day of the hearing.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).

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 is 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: • Damage to the kitchen waste disposal system on two separate occasions. • Issues with the dryer. • Damage to a couch. Waste Disposal
The landlord provided two separate invoices from plumbers. The first invoice is dated 22 December 2022. The narration to the invoice records that the plumber has investigated a blocked kitchen waste and was able to clear the blockage with a plunger. The plumber then tested the drain on a number of occasions and found it to be working correctly. The plumber said, “if this continues to happen, we can install a vented trap.” The plumber said that he advised the tenant to use hot water when putting oil or fats down the sink. The total invoice was for $161.00.
The second invoice is dated 25 November 2024. The narration to the invoice records that the plumber removed shelving from a cupboard under the kitchen sink to access a 50mm pvc waste pipe. The trap was removed. The plumber used a mechanical auger with C cutter head to unblock and clear solidified fat\grime built up in line. It took multiple attempts to ensure that the line was completely clear. The trap was refitted and tested. The drain operated normally. The total cost for the invoice was $688.34. The landlord said that the plumbers had been required to attend at the premises at the landlord’s cost as the tenant had used the waste disposal system carelessly resulting in the system becoming blocked.
The tenant said that there was a problem inherent in the system. He said that the invoice dated 22 December 2022 refers to the possibility of installing a “vented trap”. He considered that the lack of a vented trap was the cause of the problem. No evidence, other than the reference to the narration in the first invoice was provided by the tenant to support the tenant’s proposition.
The landlord recorded that a plumber had been called on a previous occasion in April 2021 to attend to the same issue for the tenant. The landlord had decided not to pass that first charge onto the tenant.
The landlord is required to prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. There seems little argument that the damage has occurred during the tenancy.
Is it fair wear and tear? A waste disposal system used appropriately by a tenant should not block on three occasions within four years. This would suggest that either there is a fault with the system or the tenant is not using the system appropriately, resulting in careless damage to the system. The only reference to a possible fault with the system is the suggestion in the first invoice, that if the problem persisted that a vented trap may be added. Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that it is more likely than not that the issue with the waste disposal system was caused as a result of the tenants careless use of the system. I do not consider that the issue has been caused as a result of fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay both plumbers invoices totalling $849.37. Dryer
The landlord says that a contractor has been called out on two occasions to carry out repairs to a dryer.
The first invoice for work on the dryer is dated 20 April 2021. The narration to the invoice indicates that the dryer needed a replacement door, door window and hinge cover. The contractor tested the dryer and found it to be working correctly.
The second invoice is dated 4 July 2024. The tenant had complained to the landlord that the clothes dryer was taking a long time to dry clothes. The contractor said that the dryer was heating and spinning correctly. He said that the filter was clogged. He cleaned the filter and the dryer had worked correctly. The landlord’s claim is $99.99 being the call out fee plus GST.
The tenant’s evidence was that the dryer took a long time to dry clothes. The tenant said that the dryer had not been fixed and still took time to dry clothes. He said that the dryer is old, but could not say how long the dryer had been in operation. In the circumstances where the tenant sees that the dryer is still not operating correctly, I consider that it is more likely than not that any issues with the dryer are as a result of fair wear and tear over a period of time. If further work is required on the dryer and the contractor instructed indicates that the sole issue is a failure by the tenant to clear the filter, then the landlord may wish to refer to any future adjudicator considering the matter to this decision. The landlord's claim is dismissed. Couch
The landlord said that a couch had been purchased 18 months into the term of the tenancy. The purchase price was $568.00. The landlord said that the couch has now had to be replaced as springs and the couch had broken. The landlord did not know what had caused the damage. The landlord seeks reimbursement for the replacement cost, disposal costs for the replaced couch and a share of labour travel and parking to a total of $960.00.
The tenant said that the couch provided was of inferior quality. He said that he had only used it for two years and already the springs were starting to show through. He said that he had only used the couch for the purpose for which couches are manufactured, namely sitting on it.
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629,4169403.
In Nixon V Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT216/94,30 January 1996 the District Court held that a tenant would not be liable for fear wear and tear, meaning damage during ordinary use. “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition... Where a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fair wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fear wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.”
In the Tribunals view, the tenant has raised a plausible explanation to indicate that damage to the couch has occurred due to fair wear and tear. The explanation having been raised, the landlord’s application is dismissed.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. Neither party can be said to have been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the applications for name suppression are dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5085514 — net $849.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$849.37	Repairs
Net award	$849.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$849.37

Order

Venkataramaiah Koonapareddy must pay Viaduct City Rentals Limited $849.37 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 7 April 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy commenced on 15 March 2021 and was current as of the day of the hearing.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).

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 is 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: • Damage to the kitchen waste disposal system on two separate occasions. • Issues with the dryer. • Damage to a couch. Waste Disposal
The landlord provided two separate invoices from plumbers. The first invoice is dated 22 December 2022. The narration to the invoice records that the plumber has investigated a blocked kitchen waste and was able to clear the blockage with a plunger. The plumber then tested the drain on a number of occasions and found it to be working correctly. The plumber said, “if this continues to happen, we can install a vented trap.” The plumber said that he advised the tenant to use hot water when putting oil or fats down the sink. The total invoice was for $161.00.
The second invoice is dated 25 November 2024. The narration to the invoice records that the plumber removed shelving from a cupboard under the kitchen sink to access a 50mm pvc waste pipe. The trap was removed. The plumber used a mechanical auger with C cutter head to unblock and clear solidified fat\grime built up in line. It took multiple attempts to ensure that the line was completely clear. The trap was refitted and tested. The drain operated normally. The total cost for the invoice was $688.34. The landlord said that the plumbers had been required to attend at the premises at the landlord’s cost as the tenant had used the waste disposal system carelessly resulting in the system becoming blocked.
The tenant said that there was a problem inherent in the system. He said that the invoice dated 22 December 2022 refers to the possibility of installing a “vented trap”. He considered that the lack of a vented trap was the cause of the problem. No evidence, other than the reference to the narration in the first invoice was provided by the tenant to support the tenant’s proposition.
The landlord recorded that a plumber had been called on a previous occasion in April 2021 to attend to the same issue for the tenant. The landlord had decided not to pass that first charge onto the tenant.
The landlord is required to prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. There seems little argument that the damage has occurred during the tenancy.
Is it fair wear and tear? A waste disposal system used appropriately by a tenant should not block on three occasions within four years. This would suggest that either there is a fault with the system or the tenant is not using the system appropriately, resulting in careless damage to the system. The only reference to a possible fault with the system is the suggestion in the first invoice, that if the problem persisted that a vented trap may be added. Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that it is more likely than not that the issue with the waste disposal system was caused as a result of the tenants careless use of the system. I do not consider that the issue has been caused as a result of fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay both plumbers invoices totalling $849.37. Dryer
The landlord says that a contractor has been called out on two occasions to carry out repairs to a dryer.
The first invoice for work on the dryer is dated 20 April 2021. The narration to the invoice indicates that the dryer needed a replacement door, door window and hinge cover. The contractor tested the dryer and found it to be working correctly.
The second invoice is dated 4 July 2024. The tenant had complained to the landlord that the clothes dryer was taking a long time to dry clothes. The contractor said that the dryer was heating and spinning correctly. He said that the filter was clogged. He cleaned the filter and the dryer had worked correctly. The landlord’s claim is $99.99 being the call out fee plus GST.
The tenant’s evidence was that the dryer took a long time to dry clothes. The tenant said that the dryer had not been fixed and still took time to dry clothes. He said that the dryer is old, but could not say how long the dryer had been in operation. In the circumstances where the tenant sees that the dryer is still not operating correctly, I consider that it is more likely than not that any issues with the dryer are as a result of fair wear and tear over a period of time. If further work is required on the dryer and the contractor instructed indicates that the sole issue is a failure by the tenant to clear the filter, then the landlord may wish to refer to any future adjudicator considering the matter to this decision. The landlord's claim is dismissed. Couch
The landlord said that a couch had been purchased 18 months into the term of the tenancy. The purchase price was $568.00. The landlord said that the couch has now had to be replaced as springs and the couch had broken. The landlord did not know what had caused the damage. The landlord seeks reimbursement for the replacement cost, disposal costs for the replaced couch and a share of labour travel and parking to a total of $960.00.
The tenant said that the couch provided was of inferior quality. He said that he had only used it for two years and already the springs were starting to show through. He said that he had only used the couch for the purpose for which couches are manufactured, namely sitting on it.
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629,4169403.
In Nixon V Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT216/94,30 January 1996 the District Court held that a tenant would not be liable for fear wear and tear, meaning damage during ordinary use. “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition... Where a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fair wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fear wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.”
In the Tribunals view, the tenant has raised a plausible explanation to indicate that damage to the couch has occurred due to fair wear and tear. The explanation having been raised, the landlord’s application is dismissed.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. Neither party can be said to have been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the applications for name suppression are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5085514 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 711, 53 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5085514 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 711, 53 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

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