What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5120428 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 5120428?

Hydra Jet: $264.50 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $3,180.00 awarded to tenant; Bedroom Door Handles: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Fence And Gate: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $343.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $316.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120428?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12737175-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5120428 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 5120428?

Hydra Jet: $264.50 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $3,180.00 awarded to tenant; Bedroom Door Handles: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Fence And Gate: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $343.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $316.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120428?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12737175-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5120428 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5120428 — net $799.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$316.42		Water rates
Lawns and Garden work	$287.50		Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal: skip bins	$343.00		Rubbish removal: skip bins
Rubbish removal	$138.00		Rubbish removal
Insurance excess	$750.00		Insurance excess
Repairs: Bedroom door handles	$80.00		Repairs: Bedroom door handles
Repairs: Doors	$1,600.00		Repairs: Doors
Hydra jet	$264.50		Hydra jet
Repairs: Fence and gate	$200.00		Repairs: Fence and gate
Rent credit		$3,180.00	Rent credit
Total award	$3,979.42	$3,180.00
Net award	$799.42
Bond	$2,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$799.42

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5120428 — net $799.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$316.42		Water rates
Lawns and Garden work	$287.50		Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal: skip bins	$343.00		Rubbish removal: skip bins
Rubbish removal	$138.00		Rubbish removal
Insurance excess	$750.00		Insurance excess
Repairs: Bedroom door handles	$80.00		Repairs: Bedroom door handles
Repairs: Doors	$1,600.00		Repairs: Doors
Hydra jet	$264.50		Hydra jet
Repairs: Fence and gate	$200.00		Repairs: Fence and gate
Rent credit		$3,180.00	Rent credit
Total award	$3,979.42	$3,180.00
Net award	$799.42
Bond	$2,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$799.42

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $799.42 [The tenant/s]: $1,880.58

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on the 12 November 2025.
The tenant, his partner [The tenant's partner], and their 3 children aged 7, 5 and 3 lived at the tenancy address from 18 July 2022 until 19 September 2024.
On the 23 August 2024 the tenant accepts that they left a pot of oil unattended on the stove, which caused a fire. The fire service was called, and the fire was extinguished in both the kitchen and in the ceiling where it had travelled.
On the 11 September 2024 the landlord gave a 7-day notice to the tenant to terminate the tenancy pursuant to s59 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenancy ended on the 18 September 2024 pursuant to that notice.
The tenants filed their claim first; they claim: a. That the landlord has retained a rent credit. b. That the landlord allowed them to live in the property after the landlord had been told that it was uninhabitable. The tenants say that this could have been injurious to their health. c. That the landlord allowed the tenants to live in the property when there was no means of cooking apart from outside on the tenant’s BBQ. d. That the landlord has prevented the tenant from getting their bond and has not provided any documents that support the claim for damages when the tenants have asked for those documents such as the insurance report, and costs of repair.
The tenants seek return of the rent credit, bond and $20,000 in compensation.
The landlord disputes the tenant’s claims and says that the tenants caused the fire and at first the landlord understood that the property was not extensively damaged, to the extent it could not be lived in whilst being repaired, but after further investigation and consideration it was deemed necessary to give notice to allow the work to be done quickly and without disruption to the tenant.
The landlord is seeking the following: a. The insurance excess of $1250. b. Carpet damage in two bedrooms -$1500.00 c. Garage Door damage-$300 d. Bedroom door handles -$80.00 e. Replacement and painting 4x interior doors $2200.00 f. Replacement and painting 2x cupboard doors $900.00 g. Fence gate and post damage $200.00. h. Cost of Hydra Jet for clearing drains of baby wipes $264.05 i. Bins $343.00 j. Rubbish cleaning and Lawnmowing $1000.50 k. Water $387.32 l. Rent from 19 September to 2 October.
The landlord seeks the rent credit and the bond to be paid to the landlord in part payment of these costs and the tenants to pay the balance.
The tenant accepts the following claims: • the landlord’s claims for water (but says that the amount is $326.42- this was accepted by the landlord) • The lawnmowing claim of $287.50 (inclusive of GST) • The bins $343.00 • Rubbish removal of the amount invoiced of $138 (inclusive of GST). The landlord disputes that amount. • The insurance excess- the landlord confirmed at the hearing that it was only seeking the disclosed insurance excess in the agreement of $750.00 • The bedroom door handles $80.00 • Liability for the wardrobe doors, and the bathroom and kitchen door only. The tenant disputes the costs of repairing the damages. • The hydra jet costs $264.50
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are: a. Are the tenants liable for the costs of: • Cleaning, • Carpet replacement, • The amount that should be awarded for rubbish removal, • Replacement of the hallway and laundry doors, • Damage to the garage door , • Fence and gate post damage. b. Should the landlord have given the tenant notice under s59 RTA earlier than the 11 September 2024? c. Did the landlord provide a means for cooking after the fire? d. Is the landlord entitled to rent from the 19 September to the 2 October? e. Did the landlord withhold the tenants’ bond or rent credit? f. What amount of rent should the tenants have paid after the fire?

Are the tenants liable for the cleaning of the property?

At the end of the tenancy, tenants are required to return the property to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord says that its insurance company had asked the landlord to hand over the property to them in a tidy state to allow remedial work and specialised cleaning to be done.
The landlord says that the tenants left a lot of rubbish and items at the property and did not leave the property clean. The landlord says that that incurred costs of cleaning- tidying the property and removing the tenant’s rubbish. The landlord provided an invoice from [Cleaning company] dated 11 October 2024 which itemised cleaning of $500 plus GST, rubbish removal and dumping of $120 plus GST and lawnmowing and weeding of $250 plus GST- totalling = $1000.50 inclusive of GST.
The tenants accept that that did not leave the property clean and tidy, they say that this was because they had been told NOT to clean the property due to contamination. They accept that they left items and rubbish at the property, and that they are liable for the removal of rubbish and disposal of the goods, but they say that this should be the cost in the invoice of $120 plus GST and the cost of the skip bin.
The landlord says that the cleaning cost charged by the cleaners was not ‘actual cleaning’ but tidying and putting items in the skip bins - the landlord seeks the full amount of cleaning in the invoice of $500 plus GST.
I am satisfied that the tenant left the property reasonably clean and tidy in these particular circumstances and are not liable for the cost of cleaning of $500 plus GST in the [Cleaning company] invoice; I say this for the following reasons: • It was reasonable for the tenant not to do any further cleaning because they had been told not to clean. The email from the insurance assessors on the 29 August makes this advice clear. It says: “The tenant has indicated that they have conducted some cleaning themselves, which is not advisable under these circumstances. To proceed effectively we need clear access to the property for our contractors to carry out necessary make safe works.” • The property manager confirmed that he had told the tenants not to clean the property. • The cleaning of the property was included in the scope of works and was carried out by the insurer’s cleaners before the repair work was carried out. • The landlord provided no evidence from the insurers which supported the submission that the property had to be cleaned to a particular level before the insurer’s cleaners would carry out the cleaning. Instead, I am left with the email from the assessor dated 29 August which cautioned the landlord against cleaning. • The cleaning in the invoice is notated as general cleaning, not tidying or removal of rubbish. [The landlord’s representative] told the Tribunal what he thought the narration in the invoice meant. [The landlord’s representative] is not the cleaner or the person who wrote the invoice. His evidence was speculative. No one from [Cleaning company] gave evidence. • The removal of rubbish is separately itemised, and I consider that the removal of rubbish and items from the property to the skip bin was charged at $120 plus GST.

How much should the tenants pay for rubbish removal?

Following the reasons above I also consider that the tenant is only liable for rubbish removal of $120 plus GST and the skip bin hire. Damage. The relevant law
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. The insurance excess.
The tenant accepts that they carelessly caused the fire.
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 tenant has accepted liability for the $750.00 excess for the fire damage.
This means that any damage that results from the fire is already covered in the payment of the $750.00 excess. Damage that happened before the fire.
The landlord claims that several items were damaged by the tenant before the fire and were not covered in the insurance cover.
Much of the tenant’s defence of the landlord’s claims is that the costs are excessive for the work that was done, or that the work that the landlord says was done was not needed. The tenants also say that there is no evidence that shows what work was done. The invoice.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with an invoice dated 8 November 2024 from [Repair company]. This work covers both the repair work from the fire, paid for by the insurers as well as the repair work, which the landlord says is necessary as a result of damage that the tenant did to the property and not covered by the insurance.
[Repair company]’s sole shareholder and director is [Name redacted], who is [The landlord’s representative]’s wife. [Name redacted] also works for [The landlord/s] and appeared for the landlord at the previous hearing.
[The landlord’s representative] told me that the companies ([Repair company] and [The landlord/s]) are quite separate, but when [The landlord/s]’s owners have damage that needs a repair that [Repair company] is usually engaged to do the work. [The landlord’s representative] says that after the insurers scope of works was completed on or about the 20 September, [Repair company] provided the insurance for a quote for the repairs. He was unsure when exactly the work had been carried out but at first thought it was after the insurance company had made payment to the bank on the 12 December, but then later said that he believed that the insurance company would have approved the quote, and on that basis the work would be done after the quote had been accepted, but before the payment. He then said that he believed that the work must have been carried out by [Repair company] before the bank made payment on the 12 December 2024 to the owner’s bank.
The invoice is for $61,472.68 inclusive of GST. The amount that the insurance company paid was $53,123.53 inclusive of GST.
The [Repair company] invoice details what work the insurance company should pay for and what work was the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord did not provide the Tribunal with any documentary evidence from the insurance company which showed exactly what the insurance company had agreed to. I was concerned about whether the quote provided to the insurance company- that formed the basis of the agreed repair work matched the invoice dated 8 November 2024 that I had been given. [The landlord’s representative] assured me that it was exactly the same, apart from that in later correspondence between the landlord and the insurance company the insurers had agreed to pay for the bathroom repairs which had been itemised on the landlord’s invoice as to be paid by the landlord.
Just because the insurance company accepted the [Repair company] invoice for the repairs for the insurance works does not mean that I am obliged to simply accept the costs for the work that the tenant’s may be liable for. Usually, the Tribunal would expect to see more than one quote for the work so that it can be satisfied on what was a reasonable price for the work done. This is especially so when there is such a close relationship between the landlord and the repair company.
I did not have any evidence from anyone from [Repair company] about what repairs were carried out, when and at what cost. The tenants quite rightly raised the point that they could not question [Repair company] on how the costs were made up, whether the tradespeople are employed by [Repair company] or if they are subcontracted. The landlord did not provide any photographs of the work that had been done.
[The landlord’s representative]’s evidence about his association with [Repair company] was inconsistent, at some points he was at pains to say that the companies were completely independent of one another and that he had little to do with [Repair company], but at other times he sought to tell me exactly how the invoicing was completed. When assessing [The landlord’s representative]’s evidence, I have taken the position that he may have an general understanding of how [Repair company] operates, but that he is not involved (by his own admission) in the day to day running of that business and therefore he has not real knowledge on how invoicing or costing of work is done and his evidence on how costings were completed was speculative or based on his own belief rather than actual knowledge. The carpet.
The landlord says that the carpet in two rooms was stained and had to be replaced. The landlord says that the carpet in one room had a burn mark and in another room was stained. The landlord produced photographs of the property taken at an exit inspection dated 3 October 2024.
The carpet was just over a year old at the date of the fire. The tenant disputes that the carpet was burned or damaged before the fire. The tenant says that any stains on the carpet were as a result of the fire, or alternatively were minor stains that would have been removed by carpet cleaning.
Carpet cleaning was provided for each room in the insurer’s SOW. The landlord says that the carpet cleaning was done by the insurer’s cleaners before the repair work was completed. I did not have any evidence from the insurer’ cleaners which showed me what had been done, when and by whom.
Having considered the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven on the balance or probabilities that the tenants damaged the carpet, to the extent that it required replacement; I say this for the following reasons: • There are no photographs of the state of the carpet following the cleaning or any evidence from the carpet cleaners on whether the stains had been removed. I do not know if the stains were removed as a result of cleaning. • The stains do not appear large, and even if they were unable to removed by cleaning, I do not consider that they would necessitate replacement of the carpet • The alleged burn mark- it was not clear from the photographs provided as to what this mark was. If it was a burn mark, then it is most likely from the fire, not from some other event, because in the routine inspection photographs there is a children’s bed over that area. I also consider that if it was a burn mark that the insurance assessors would have noted that in their report. • The invoice for the carpet, does not specify which rooms the carpet was installed in. The doors
The landlord is seeking 4 x door replacement (hallway cupboard, laundry, bathroom and kitchen) at a cost of $900 per door this includes the door, painting and installation. The landlord is also seeking two wardrobe doors in the master bedroom. The tenant accepts liability for two doors in the bathroom and kitchen and the wardrobe doors. The tenant disputes that the other doors were damaged. The tenant disputes the costs being sought for all the doors.
The tenants say that the doors could be replaced at $250 per door, but this does not take into account installation and painting.
The Tribunal sees many claims for doors, the amount sought by the landlord is very high for each door compared to other claims I usually see.
The photographs provided to me of the state of the doors during the tenancy and after the tenancy shows considerable damage to the doors that the tenant has accepted liability for. I award the landlord $400 for the kitchen and bathroom door, the two wardrobe doors making a total of $1600 for the doors.
I am not satisfied from the photographs provided of the hallway doors and the laundry door that the tenant has damaged those doors. The garage door.
The landlord says that the garage door was bent and was difficult to open and close. The tenant accepts that the garage door was damaged but say this was noticed in 2022 when their home was broken into. The tenant provided a text message they sent to [The landlord/s] on the 20 October 2022, showing that they had reported this damage to the landlord and giving the landlord a copy of the Police reporting number.
I am not satisfied that the tenants caused this damage. The text message of 2022 clearly shows that the tenants understood that the damage was caused as a result of this incident. The landlord took no steps to mitigate or investigate or repair the damage or it seems to lodge an insurance claim for the door. 1 The fence post and gate.
The landlord says that the tenants damaged the fence and fence post. The landlord provided photographs of the damaged fence and post at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant says the damage to the fence post and gate was wear and tear caused by the fence being old and scraping on the driveway.
I am satisfied from the photographs that the tenants damaged the gate and fence, the gate appears off the rails and the post looks like it is on a lean. It appears as if it was hit by something from the tent’s side. I do not consider it likely that the fence has been damaged simply through wear or use, the damage is too considerable both in nature and extent to have been caused by opening and shutting the gate, even if the gate scraped on the ground.
The landlord sought $200 for this damage, I consider that amount reasonable and award the landlord that sum. Should the landlord have given the tenants notice under s59 RTA earlier than the 11 September 2024?
The tenants claim that the landlord knew that the property was uninhabitable before the 11 September 2024, but allowed the tenants to live in the property, collecting rent, when the property could have been injurious to their health. The tenants say that the landlord was aware on or about the 30 August of nature and extent of the fire (being in the ceiling and thereby potentially compromising the electricity and structural integrity of the house, and potentially exposing them to asbestos) but did not give them notice to the 11 September. The tenant says that this allowed the landlord to collect an extra two weeks full rent.
The landlord in its email to the Tribunal and the tenants of the 29 July 2025 confirmed that it accepted that no rent was payable by the tenants from the 25 1 Although this is probably because the cost of the repair was less than the insurance excess. August to the 18 September 2025. The landlord has therefore agreed not to charge the tenant rent since the landlord became aware of the fire.
The tenants say that they stayed away from the house on the night of the fire but returned the following day. The tenants were concerned about leaving the property because they had nowhere else to go and did not want to leave their possessions in the property.
I am satisfied that the landlord was aware from the 29 August that it was ill advised to allow the tenants to continue to live in the property, because the email from the insurance assessor of 29 August that day says: “We have advised the tenant that the property is unsafe for habitation due to the fire and smoke damage.’ And “it is crucial that the property be vacated to mitigate health and safety risks. There are several concerns, including potential asbestos contamination given the property’s age, as well as electrical hazards and slip and trip risk resulting from the damage”
Even though I am satisfied that the property was uninhabitable since the fire, I make no award for further compensation to the tenants for the following reasons: a. The tenant was aware that the premises were uninhabitable (the email from the insurance assessors confirms that they were told). The tenant could have given notice to end the tenancy but did not do so, in fact the tenant asked the landlord if they could continue to live in the property until they found somewhere else. b. I consider it likely that whilst not ideal, nor recommended, that the landlord allowed the tenant to continue to live in the property until they could find somewhere else to live. c. The tenants had caused the fire, (breaching s40(2)(a) RTA (carelessly damaging the property). It was open for the landlord to given notice pursuant to s59A not s59. If the landlord had done that, then then rent would not have abated. (see s59A(2) RTA).

Is the landlord entitled to rent from the 19 September to the 2 October?

The short answer to this is no. The landlord had given termination of the tenancy pursuant to s59 not s59A by doing this they were clear in their position that the property was uninhabitable. When notice is given pursuant to that section the rent abates.
Section 60(1) RTA says that when tenants remain in occupation after termination then the obligations of the tenant remain in force.
This usually means that the tenants have an obligation to pay rent, but as the rent had abated then I do not consider, in this circumstance that the tenant was liable to start paying rent again. During this period the tenants were living between two houses and were trying to move their belongings. They had little amenity at the tenancy premises.
That being said, this case is unusual in its facts and should not be viewed as permissive of tenants to simply stop paying rent but continue to live in the house after a s59 notice has been given. The purpose of giving a notice under s59 or 59A is clear, the tenancy premises are uninhabitable – they are not safe to live in. Whilst I appreciate that it is often difficult for tenants to find other places to live when a catastrophic event like this occurs, this does not mean that they should simply stay put and risk their health and lives until they find somewhere else to live.

Did the landlord fail to provide a means for cooking?

The landlord says that the tenants were able to cook and that the power to the oven was checked and that the oven and cooktop was working. The tenants dispute this. They say the only means that they had of cooking was the BBQ, as when they turned on the oven it emitted a funny smell.
The landlord said that it had an electrician check the property, despite that there was no invoice or evidence from the electrician which confirmed the property was safe. I am satisfied that the tenants should not have been using the oven as it was likely compromised in the kitchen fire, I say that because the SOW (completed on the 20 September) says that the insurers would carry out an electrical inspection and complete minor repairs where needed. The property manager also noted in his inspection report of the 3 October that the under- bench oven was giving ‘a weird smell’, and that electrical work was needed in the kitchen.
Whilst the tenants could not cook, I do not consider it fair to award compensation because it was ultimately the tenant’s breach of s40(2)(a) by carelessly starting the fire which led to this damage and the tenants are not required to pay any rent after the fire. Did the landlord withhold the tenant’s rent credit and bond?
The tenants claim that the landlord deliberately withheld the rent credit and bond from them by failing to make a claim with the Tribunal, when they said that they would in December 2024.
Any party can bring a claim to the Tribunal. I do not consider that the landlord had a greater obligation than the tenant to bring a claim to the Tribunal in an expedient manner. The tenant could have filed earlier and sought a return of their bond and the rent.

What is the amount of the rent credit?

The landlord provided me with a rent ledger. It shows that the tenants paid $3180 after the 25 August. The tenants are in credit by that amount as no rent has been ordered since then. Filing fee and name suppression
Both the tenants and the landlord have been somewhat successful in their claims and therefore I do not award either the filing fee, but award name suppression to both as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120428 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120428 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for the cleaning of the property?

How much should the tenants pay for rubbish removal?

Is the landlord entitled to rent from the 19 September to the 2 October?

Did the landlord fail to provide a means for cooking?

What is the amount of the rent credit?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for the cleaning of the property?

How much should the tenants pay for rubbish removal?

Is the landlord entitled to rent from the 19 September to the 2 October?

Did the landlord fail to provide a means for cooking?

What is the amount of the rent credit?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions