What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5122061 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 5122061?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $85.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5122061?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5122061?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12144756-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5122061 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 5122061?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $85.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5122061?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5122061?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12144756-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5122061 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5122061. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$85.71		Rent arrears
Cleaning	$253.00		Cleaning
Repairs to flooring	$460.00		Repairs to flooring
Bond		$2,400.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords and tenants names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $798.71 [The tenant/s]: $1,601.29

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 10 July 2025. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond, and compensation. The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for rent ($85.71) and cleaning ($253.00). The claim for replacement flooring ($460.00) is disputed. The landlord’s claims for blind replacement, blinds cleaning, and rubbish removal were withdrawn at the hearing.
The hearing was adjourned so that the landlord could provide better quality (and larger) photographs of the damage to the flooring in the hallway, which the landlord says was caused by the tenant. These are images 13 and 14 in the exit inspection report dated 28 November 2024.
The tenant said the damage was present at the beginning of the tenancy and some of the flooring was lifting due to damp. Following the hearing he provided further submissions and evidence. 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.
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. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. This applies to anything the tenant does, and anything done by a person they are responsible for. Analysis
The entry inspection report included photographs of the entrance hallway. No damage is visible. The flooring is stated as being in good condition “with no signs of maintenance issues”. There are photographs showing cracks in the kitchen flooring (images 47 and 48) but no mention of this in the commentary.
A routine inspection report on 13 March 2024 shows the kitchen floor damage and the location of the damage in a corner of the kitchen (images 21 and 22). A routine inspection report on 8 October 2024 contains a photograph of the damaged kitchen flooring (image 23). No maintenance issues were identified in the hallway.
The exit inspection report dated 3 December 2024 mentions “signs of wear and tear” in the hallway. There is no mention of the kitchen flooring. As noted above, the report includes photographs of flooring damage in the hallway (at images 13 and 14) and in the kitchen (60 and 61). The hallway damage is difficult to see, even on the JPG files submitted following the hearing. The flooring appears slightly cracked.
The tenant submitted that the property was damp, with mould on the curtains and ceiling. There was also an issue with fleas, which the tenant said was caused by a warm and damp atmosphere. The tenant denied anything being dropped on the floor as suggested by the landlord. The dampness was causing the flooring to crack.
The landlord submitted that the hallway damage was in the middle of the hallway, not in a corner where it could reasonably be attributed to general wear and tear. The landlord said there was a significant crack in the centre of the hallway.
The nature of the damage arguably supports the tenant’s assessment. The cracking is not very consistent with something being dropped on the floor, which might be expected to leave a dent. There appear to be parallel cracks visible in images 13 and 14 of the exit report, and this kind of cracking also seems inconsistent with impact damage. The same can be said about the damage in the kitchen, which is similar in appearance – it does not obviously look consistent with something being dropped. The difficulty is that there is insufficient evidence to support the tenant’s view that the cracking was caused by dampness.
The tenant’s video of a disconnected downpipe discharging onto the ground does not establish anything about the weathertightness of the building structure. The photographs provided show some mould on a blind and are said to show mould on the ceiling in one area. More significant, in my view, is that none of the inspection reports refer to dampness or mould. The property looks well presented in the photographs. If there was a widespread issue with damp, it might be expected that the flooring would be lifting or cracking elsewhere. The tenant referred to the flooring swelling in a corner of the lounge, but no photograph was provided. It follows that the damage has not been linked to a maintenance failure by the landlord.
Despite the comments in the inspection report, I consider that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. Reasonable or normal use on its own would be unlikely to result in a cracked floor.
The damage probably occurred during the tenancy. Although the issue is not free from difficulty, on the balance of probabilities I find that the tenant has not discharged the onus of establishing that the flooring was not carelessly or intentionally damaged. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
Both parties requested suppression. Both have had some success. I grant suppression as requested.
The parties will bear their own costs.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5122061. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$85.71		Rent arrears
Cleaning	$253.00		Cleaning
Repairs to flooring	$460.00		Repairs to flooring
Bond		$2,400.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords and tenants names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $798.71 [The tenant/s]: $1,601.29

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 10 July 2025. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond, and compensation. The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for rent ($85.71) and cleaning ($253.00). The claim for replacement flooring ($460.00) is disputed. The landlord’s claims for blind replacement, blinds cleaning, and rubbish removal were withdrawn at the hearing.
The hearing was adjourned so that the landlord could provide better quality (and larger) photographs of the damage to the flooring in the hallway, which the landlord says was caused by the tenant. These are images 13 and 14 in the exit inspection report dated 28 November 2024.
The tenant said the damage was present at the beginning of the tenancy and some of the flooring was lifting due to damp. Following the hearing he provided further submissions and evidence. 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.
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. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. This applies to anything the tenant does, and anything done by a person they are responsible for. Analysis
The entry inspection report included photographs of the entrance hallway. No damage is visible. The flooring is stated as being in good condition “with no signs of maintenance issues”. There are photographs showing cracks in the kitchen flooring (images 47 and 48) but no mention of this in the commentary.
A routine inspection report on 13 March 2024 shows the kitchen floor damage and the location of the damage in a corner of the kitchen (images 21 and 22). A routine inspection report on 8 October 2024 contains a photograph of the damaged kitchen flooring (image 23). No maintenance issues were identified in the hallway.
The exit inspection report dated 3 December 2024 mentions “signs of wear and tear” in the hallway. There is no mention of the kitchen flooring. As noted above, the report includes photographs of flooring damage in the hallway (at images 13 and 14) and in the kitchen (60 and 61). The hallway damage is difficult to see, even on the JPG files submitted following the hearing. The flooring appears slightly cracked.
The tenant submitted that the property was damp, with mould on the curtains and ceiling. There was also an issue with fleas, which the tenant said was caused by a warm and damp atmosphere. The tenant denied anything being dropped on the floor as suggested by the landlord. The dampness was causing the flooring to crack.
The landlord submitted that the hallway damage was in the middle of the hallway, not in a corner where it could reasonably be attributed to general wear and tear. The landlord said there was a significant crack in the centre of the hallway.
The nature of the damage arguably supports the tenant’s assessment. The cracking is not very consistent with something being dropped on the floor, which might be expected to leave a dent. There appear to be parallel cracks visible in images 13 and 14 of the exit report, and this kind of cracking also seems inconsistent with impact damage. The same can be said about the damage in the kitchen, which is similar in appearance – it does not obviously look consistent with something being dropped. The difficulty is that there is insufficient evidence to support the tenant’s view that the cracking was caused by dampness.
The tenant’s video of a disconnected downpipe discharging onto the ground does not establish anything about the weathertightness of the building structure. The photographs provided show some mould on a blind and are said to show mould on the ceiling in one area. More significant, in my view, is that none of the inspection reports refer to dampness or mould. The property looks well presented in the photographs. If there was a widespread issue with damp, it might be expected that the flooring would be lifting or cracking elsewhere. The tenant referred to the flooring swelling in a corner of the lounge, but no photograph was provided. It follows that the damage has not been linked to a maintenance failure by the landlord.
Despite the comments in the inspection report, I consider that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. Reasonable or normal use on its own would be unlikely to result in a cracked floor.
The damage probably occurred during the tenancy. Although the issue is not free from difficulty, on the balance of probabilities I find that the tenant has not discharged the onus of establishing that the flooring was not carelessly or intentionally damaged. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
Both parties requested suppression. Both have had some success. I grant suppression as requested.
The parties will bear their own costs.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5122061 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5122061 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions