What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5129258 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 5129258?

Black Sticky Tape: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Overpaid Rent: $274.28 awarded to tenant; Curtain Track Labour: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $99.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $469.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5129258?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5129258?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11611415-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5129258 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 5129258?

Black Sticky Tape: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Overpaid Rent: $274.28 awarded to tenant; Curtain Track Labour: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $99.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $469.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5129258?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5129258?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11611415-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5129258 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5129258 — net $724.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: oven replacement	$469.00		Repairs: oven replacement
Lock/key replacement: garage remote	$99.90		Lock/key replacement: garage remote
Curtain track labour	$30.00		Curtain track labour
Black sticky tape	$100.00		Black sticky tape
Repairs: ceiling repair	$300.00		Repairs: ceiling repair
Compensation: overpaid rent		$274.28	overpaid rent
Total award	$998.90	$274.28
Net award	$724.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$724.62

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $724.62 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $724.62 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,675.38 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 7 March 2025.
The tenancy was from 5 December 2019 and ended on 16 October 2024.
The tenant made an application for compensation and exemplary damages for the premises not being provided and maintained in a clean and reasonable state, not being maintained to a reasonable state, not being compliant with Healthy Homes Standard (“HHS”), having pest issues and the landlord giving insufficient notice for increase of rent, and refund of the bond.
The landlord made a cross-application for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
I consider the landlord’s application first. The landlord’s claims
The landlord claimed compensation for: a. Damaged oven replacement; b. Insurance excess for broken ranch slider glass door; c. Replacement of missing garage door remote; d. New joiner moulding; e. Replacement for three missing curtain tracks; f. Miscellaneous repairs; g. Hole in the ceiling of room next to garage; h. Missing trellis at the end of the deck; i. Removal of black stickers attached to the walls; and j. Stains on walls
For damage claims, 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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. See section 49B(3)(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 5129258, 51685113 applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
The Tribunal also needs to take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The tenant did not dispute having accidently damaged the oven, having lost garage door remote, having left the tenant’s own curtain end brackets after having removed the existing curtain tracks or the need to remove black stickers attached to the walls. I order the tenant to compensate the landlord as ordered above.
In relation to the ranch slider, the tenant said that the crack was pre-existing. The landlord did not have photos to prove that the crack was not pre-existing. The landlord relied on a HHS report from 8 December 2020 stating that there were no cracked or broken panes of glass but I am not satisfied that the crack was not pre-existing and had been cracked due to the tenant’s careless use or deliberate actions.
For joiner moulding connecting the lounge carpet and the hardwood dining room floor, I find that it was fair wear and tear.
For missing curtain tracks, the tenant said they took the curtain tracks down because they became rotten and fell apart. The tenant left them in the garage roof space. The tenant had put new curtains up but did not remove the end brackets at the end of the tenancy. I award the landlord $30.00 for labour to take off the curtain end brackets.
For miscellaneous repairs, they relate to pelmet by the sliding door access to the garage which I find was wear and tear. I do not find that the damage was intentional or carelessly caused by the tenant.
There was a hole in the ceiling of room next to the garage. The tenant has used that room as a gym and there was a lateral pulldown machine as well as items being stored in the roof space above. I find that the damage to the ceiling had been caused carelessly when the lateral pulldown machine was moved. I order the tenant to compensate the landlord $300.00 for its repair.
There was a missing trellis at the end of the deck. The tenant said that it had rotted and that it was moved in the roof space in the garage. I note that the trellis was pre-existing when the landlord had purchased the property in 2013 and accept that it would have been rotten. I do not grant any awards for this.
Lastly for stains on walls, the tenant said that discolouration occurred when the tenant cleaned the wall with sugar soap and spray to clean mould from walls. The tenant said that the cleaning lifted the paint or product that was on the wall 5129258, 51685114 surface. I do not find that any stains on the walls were caused carelessly or intentionally by the tenant. I dismiss this claim. The tenant’s claims
The tenant claimed for: a. The premises not being provided and maintained in a clean and reasonable state; b. The premises not being complaint with HHS; c. The premises having pest issues; d. The landlord giving insufficient notice for increase of rent; e. Exemplary damages; and f. Refund of the bond.
In relation to the maintenance issues the tenant claimed: a. There were unfixed holes in floor which were unsafe and were trip hazards; b. There was severe mould infestation that damaged and destroyed personal belongings; c. There was no vapour barrier or insulation; d. The deck had rotten railing and steps; e. There was no HHS certificate; f. The roof leaked, and that the ceiling was damaged and had collapsed; g. There were no extractor fans in bathrooms; h. There was hole in bathroom window from mould and leaks; i. The master bedroom leaked; j. There was cat urine through the property; and k. The house had severe rat and bug infestations.
The landlord accepted that the rent increase occurred with only 30 days’ notice instead of 60 days’ notice. The landlord disputed all other claims and stressed that the tenant has never raised these issues with the landlord before.
The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 1 July 2025 as the tenancy began in December 2019. The premises did not have to be compliant with HHS. However, the landlord had evidence of the premises being compliant with HHS.
The tenant accepted that they had only ever raised issues with the landlord verbally. There was no written communication for any of the issues raised in the tenant’s application. 5129258, 51685115
Under section 49 RTA, there is a duty on the tenant to take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from breaches by the landlord. This means that the tenant was required to raise issues with the landlord for them to be addressed.
For holes in the floor, there was evidence that the floor had been fixed when raised by the tenant. Although the tenant claimed that the holes were never repaired to the correct standard, the tenant never raised issues about the holes in the floor once they had been repaired.
The tenant accepted that the tenant had not raised the issues with the landlord otherwise in writing. The tenant could not provide evidence of ever raising any issues sufficiently to the landlord.
Other than awarding $274.28 for overpaid rent, I do not find that the tenant has proven the claims to the point of awarding any compensation or exemplary damages.
I dismiss the tenant’s claims. Suppression of details
I do not find there is public interest in the parties or the premises being identified. I order for suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5129258 — net $724.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: oven replacement	$469.00		Repairs: oven replacement
Lock/key replacement: garage remote	$99.90		Lock/key replacement: garage remote
Curtain track labour	$30.00		Curtain track labour
Black sticky tape	$100.00		Black sticky tape
Repairs: ceiling repair	$300.00		Repairs: ceiling repair
Compensation: overpaid rent		$274.28	overpaid rent
Total award	$998.90	$274.28
Net award	$724.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$724.62

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $724.62 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $724.62 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,675.38 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 7 March 2025.
The tenancy was from 5 December 2019 and ended on 16 October 2024.
The tenant made an application for compensation and exemplary damages for the premises not being provided and maintained in a clean and reasonable state, not being maintained to a reasonable state, not being compliant with Healthy Homes Standard (“HHS”), having pest issues and the landlord giving insufficient notice for increase of rent, and refund of the bond.
The landlord made a cross-application for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
I consider the landlord’s application first. The landlord’s claims
The landlord claimed compensation for: a. Damaged oven replacement; b. Insurance excess for broken ranch slider glass door; c. Replacement of missing garage door remote; d. New joiner moulding; e. Replacement for three missing curtain tracks; f. Miscellaneous repairs; g. Hole in the ceiling of room next to garage; h. Missing trellis at the end of the deck; i. Removal of black stickers attached to the walls; and j. Stains on walls
For damage claims, 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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. See section 49B(3)(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 5129258, 51685113 applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
The Tribunal also needs to take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The tenant did not dispute having accidently damaged the oven, having lost garage door remote, having left the tenant’s own curtain end brackets after having removed the existing curtain tracks or the need to remove black stickers attached to the walls. I order the tenant to compensate the landlord as ordered above.
In relation to the ranch slider, the tenant said that the crack was pre-existing. The landlord did not have photos to prove that the crack was not pre-existing. The landlord relied on a HHS report from 8 December 2020 stating that there were no cracked or broken panes of glass but I am not satisfied that the crack was not pre-existing and had been cracked due to the tenant’s careless use or deliberate actions.
For joiner moulding connecting the lounge carpet and the hardwood dining room floor, I find that it was fair wear and tear.
For missing curtain tracks, the tenant said they took the curtain tracks down because they became rotten and fell apart. The tenant left them in the garage roof space. The tenant had put new curtains up but did not remove the end brackets at the end of the tenancy. I award the landlord $30.00 for labour to take off the curtain end brackets.
For miscellaneous repairs, they relate to pelmet by the sliding door access to the garage which I find was wear and tear. I do not find that the damage was intentional or carelessly caused by the tenant.
There was a hole in the ceiling of room next to the garage. The tenant has used that room as a gym and there was a lateral pulldown machine as well as items being stored in the roof space above. I find that the damage to the ceiling had been caused carelessly when the lateral pulldown machine was moved. I order the tenant to compensate the landlord $300.00 for its repair.
There was a missing trellis at the end of the deck. The tenant said that it had rotted and that it was moved in the roof space in the garage. I note that the trellis was pre-existing when the landlord had purchased the property in 2013 and accept that it would have been rotten. I do not grant any awards for this.
Lastly for stains on walls, the tenant said that discolouration occurred when the tenant cleaned the wall with sugar soap and spray to clean mould from walls. The tenant said that the cleaning lifted the paint or product that was on the wall 5129258, 51685114 surface. I do not find that any stains on the walls were caused carelessly or intentionally by the tenant. I dismiss this claim. The tenant’s claims
The tenant claimed for: a. The premises not being provided and maintained in a clean and reasonable state; b. The premises not being complaint with HHS; c. The premises having pest issues; d. The landlord giving insufficient notice for increase of rent; e. Exemplary damages; and f. Refund of the bond.
In relation to the maintenance issues the tenant claimed: a. There were unfixed holes in floor which were unsafe and were trip hazards; b. There was severe mould infestation that damaged and destroyed personal belongings; c. There was no vapour barrier or insulation; d. The deck had rotten railing and steps; e. There was no HHS certificate; f. The roof leaked, and that the ceiling was damaged and had collapsed; g. There were no extractor fans in bathrooms; h. There was hole in bathroom window from mould and leaks; i. The master bedroom leaked; j. There was cat urine through the property; and k. The house had severe rat and bug infestations.
The landlord accepted that the rent increase occurred with only 30 days’ notice instead of 60 days’ notice. The landlord disputed all other claims and stressed that the tenant has never raised these issues with the landlord before.
The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 1 July 2025 as the tenancy began in December 2019. The premises did not have to be compliant with HHS. However, the landlord had evidence of the premises being compliant with HHS.
The tenant accepted that they had only ever raised issues with the landlord verbally. There was no written communication for any of the issues raised in the tenant’s application. 5129258, 51685115
Under section 49 RTA, there is a duty on the tenant to take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from breaches by the landlord. This means that the tenant was required to raise issues with the landlord for them to be addressed.
For holes in the floor, there was evidence that the floor had been fixed when raised by the tenant. Although the tenant claimed that the holes were never repaired to the correct standard, the tenant never raised issues about the holes in the floor once they had been repaired.
The tenant accepted that the tenant had not raised the issues with the landlord otherwise in writing. The tenant could not provide evidence of ever raising any issues sufficiently to the landlord.
Other than awarding $274.28 for overpaid rent, I do not find that the tenant has proven the claims to the point of awarding any compensation or exemplary damages.
I dismiss the tenant’s claims. Suppression of details
I do not find there is public interest in the parties or the premises being identified. I order for suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5129258 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5129258 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions