What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5117250 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 5117250?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Labour: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord; Laminate End Panel: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Paint And Supplies: $989.39 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5117250?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5117250?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11858829-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5117250 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 5117250?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Labour: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord; Laminate End Panel: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Paint And Supplies: $989.39 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5117250?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5117250?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11858829-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5117250 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5117250 — net $5,446.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Doors	$2,800.00	Repairs: Doors
Repairs: Paint and supplies	$989.39	Repairs: Paint and supplies
Repairs: Labour	$1,380.00	Repairs: Labour
Repairs: Laminate end panel	$250.00	Repairs: Laminate end panel
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,446.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,446.39

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Sorrell Hooton and Boijacque Arthur Tatana must pay [The landlord/s] $5,446.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing on 18 March 2025.
The tenants did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenants on the numbers provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went through to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given.
The relevant law is found in the 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).
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for compensation for damage caused by the tenants and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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. The landlord has provided written confirmation from their insurer, that the policy of insurance does not cover the damage caused as the damage was not “sudden and accidental”. In the event that the Tribunal where to find the damage had been caused carelessly by the tenants, this would limit the tenants’ potential liability to the equivalent of four weeks rent or $2,800.00 on each and every claim.
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:
The premises included large custom made bifold doors. The back door latch, handle, strike plate and the overlapping lip on the doors had been damaged during the tenancy. The tenants had attempted to repair the damage themselves, using parts from a different lock and plywood on one of the wooden lips. Due to the lip of the doors being an impact zone and the thinness of the wood around the lock, both doors needed to be replaced. Photos of the doors and the attempted repairs were provided by the landlord. The photos show that the repairs have not been carried out in a professional manner. A quote for the repair of the tenant’s repairs from Westpine Joinery has been provided. The landlord has paid the 50% deposit for the work to be done. The total cost is $3,100.00.
The damage caused by the original damage and the tenant’s repairs is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The evidence does not suggest that the damage was intentional. The landlord’s policy of insurance does not cover the damage. In those circumstances, the tenant’s liability under this claim is limited to the equivalent of four weeks rent ($2,800.00).
The landlord said that one door in the premises had been kicked in. All walls in the hallway and in two bedrooms were damaged. The doors have been replaced by the landlord. The landlord has completed repairs himself. Work to repair damage was required in every room of the premises with the exception of the kitchen. The landlord provided photos of the damage and invoices for paint and supplies of $989.39.The landlord provided an invoice for his labour in sanding and painting the damaged areas. The landlord has charged for his labour at $30.00 per hour which is a rate that the Tribunal has in previously considered an acceptable rate for landlord labour. The landlord’s claim is for $1,380.00 which is reasonable given the amount of work required. The damage caused is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
During an inspection of the premises on 5 October 2024 the landlord discovered that the end panel of the kitchen cupboards had screws drilled through it by the tenant. The tenant had made an unauthorised adjustment to the cupboard, so that a larger fridge could be installed. In doing so, screws had been placed through the Formica panel. A replacement panel was installed by the landlord at a cost of $250.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenants to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5117250 — net $5,446.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Doors	$2,800.00	Repairs: Doors
Repairs: Paint and supplies	$989.39	Repairs: Paint and supplies
Repairs: Labour	$1,380.00	Repairs: Labour
Repairs: Laminate end panel	$250.00	Repairs: Laminate end panel
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,446.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,446.39

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Sorrell Hooton and Boijacque Arthur Tatana must pay [The landlord/s] $5,446.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing on 18 March 2025.
The tenants did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenants on the numbers provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went through to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given.
The relevant law is found in the 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).
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for compensation for damage caused by the tenants and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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. The landlord has provided written confirmation from their insurer, that the policy of insurance does not cover the damage caused as the damage was not “sudden and accidental”. In the event that the Tribunal where to find the damage had been caused carelessly by the tenants, this would limit the tenants’ potential liability to the equivalent of four weeks rent or $2,800.00 on each and every claim.
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:
The premises included large custom made bifold doors. The back door latch, handle, strike plate and the overlapping lip on the doors had been damaged during the tenancy. The tenants had attempted to repair the damage themselves, using parts from a different lock and plywood on one of the wooden lips. Due to the lip of the doors being an impact zone and the thinness of the wood around the lock, both doors needed to be replaced. Photos of the doors and the attempted repairs were provided by the landlord. The photos show that the repairs have not been carried out in a professional manner. A quote for the repair of the tenant’s repairs from Westpine Joinery has been provided. The landlord has paid the 50% deposit for the work to be done. The total cost is $3,100.00.
The damage caused by the original damage and the tenant’s repairs is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The evidence does not suggest that the damage was intentional. The landlord’s policy of insurance does not cover the damage. In those circumstances, the tenant’s liability under this claim is limited to the equivalent of four weeks rent ($2,800.00).
The landlord said that one door in the premises had been kicked in. All walls in the hallway and in two bedrooms were damaged. The doors have been replaced by the landlord. The landlord has completed repairs himself. Work to repair damage was required in every room of the premises with the exception of the kitchen. The landlord provided photos of the damage and invoices for paint and supplies of $989.39.The landlord provided an invoice for his labour in sanding and painting the damaged areas. The landlord has charged for his labour at $30.00 per hour which is a rate that the Tribunal has in previously considered an acceptable rate for landlord labour. The landlord’s claim is for $1,380.00 which is reasonable given the amount of work required. The damage caused is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
During an inspection of the premises on 5 October 2024 the landlord discovered that the end panel of the kitchen cupboards had screws drilled through it by the tenant. The tenant had made an unauthorised adjustment to the cupboard, so that a larger fridge could be installed. In doing so, screws had been placed through the Formica panel. A replacement panel was installed by the landlord at a cost of $250.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenants to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5117250 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5117250 — Property damage

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

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

Frequently asked questions