What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5145936 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5145936?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,173.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5145936?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5145936?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11855273-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5145936 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5145936?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,173.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5145936?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5145936?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11855273-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

67A Rimu Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5145936 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5145936 — net $430.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5/1/25	$1,173.00	Rent arrears to 5/1/25
Insurance excess	$550.00	Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$430.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$430.00

An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay Online Rentals Limited $430.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Online Rentals Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Meecham represented the landlord.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The rent arrears are agreed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks reimbursement of the insurance excess they had to pay to have the kitchen vinyl replaced due to rips, stains and gouges. Their evidence is that new vinyl was installed in March 2022 and the tenancy ended in January 2025, less than three years later, with significant wear to the vinyl.

[The tenant/s] considers that some of the marks were fair wear as they were a family living there with young children. He agrees that several larger rips occurred when they were moving the fridge out. He says the particle board underneath the vinyl is not fit for purpose as it gets soft over time with moisture and so when they moved their fridge it was heavy and as such the wheels sunk in and ripped the vinyl.

Mr Meecham provided an email from the repairer stating that the water damage was “more than likely caused from a leaking fridge unit” as there was no internal piping located in the area. The landlord is paying for the water damage repair, they are only seeking the insurance excess with respect to the vinyl replacement.

The builder gave oral evidence confirming the area was wet which he could only attribute to the fridge. He says that whilst the flooring is particle board, which is not ideal, it would only have absorbed water if excess water had been applied to it.

[The tenant/s]’ evidence is that his fridge was purchased less than a year earlier and did not leak, nor is it leaking now, so he is unsure how the underfloor got wet. The law and discussion

To be successful in such a claim, 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

There is no assertion that the damage was intentional here, rather the question is whether it was careless or not.

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 (s49B cap). The excess is $550.

Carelessness is not defined in the RTA, but it has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The standard of care required is similar to the standard of care required by the general law of tort in negligence cases. Thus, the question can be expressed as whether the tenant, or some other person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, was “exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances”, see Mercier v Smith & Greenan14/12/98, Dunedin TT 228/93.

Betterment and depreciation also need to be taken into account. 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.

The lifespan of vinyl in New Zealand residential tenancies is 8 to 10 years. This vinyl was not even halfway into its expected lifespan and whilst it is not particularly good quality vinyl, the landlord could have expected more years of wear from it.

After carefully considering the photos, I find that some of the smaller marks and dents could be considered fair wear and tear as they occurred in the usual use of the space. However, the gouges made from the fridge trolley are sufficiently large that they necessitated the vinyl being replaced and are in excess of fair wear and tear.

I make this finding as there must have been an element of carelessness in moving the fridge to have caused such damage. There are several large gouges. Irrespective as to how it occurred, if the flooring was wet, extra care would have been required to move the fridge. Likewise given the fridge was heavy, extra care was required. If extra care is required due to a known situation, and not taken and damage results, that is carelessness.

Accordingly, I find the tenants liable for the insurance excess cost. This amount is less than the s 49B cap and the depreciated cost of the floor replacement. Filing fee

Because Online Rentals Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

Because [The tenant/s] has consented to the bulk of this claim, I consider it just that his name be suppressed. It is in the public interest that there be no deterrent to parties consenting to orders, see section 95A of the RTA.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5145936 — net $430.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5/1/25	$1,173.00	Rent arrears to 5/1/25
Insurance excess	$550.00	Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$430.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$430.00

An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay Online Rentals Limited $430.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Online Rentals Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Meecham represented the landlord.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The rent arrears are agreed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

[The tenant/s]’ evidence is that his fridge was purchased less than a year earlier and did not leak, nor is it leaking now, so he is unsure how the underfloor got wet. The law and discussion

There is no assertion that the damage was intentional here, rather the question is whether it was careless or not.

Accordingly, I find the tenants liable for the insurance excess cost. This amount is less than the s 49B cap and the depreciated cost of the floor replacement. Filing fee

Because Online Rentals Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 5145936 — Rent arrears at 67A Rimu Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5145936 — Rent arrears at 67A Rimu Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200

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