What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5159199 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 5159199?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Walls, Doors And Vanity: $1,852.77 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2,299.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5159199?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5159199?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12029571-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5159199 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 5159199?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Walls, Doors And Vanity: $1,852.77 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2,299.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5159199?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5159199?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12029571-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

98 Wattle Farm Road, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5159199 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5159199 — net $1,219.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: walls, doors and vanity	$1,852.77	Repairs: walls, doors and vanity
Water rates to 12 June 2025	$2,299.82	Water rates to 12 June 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,219.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,219.59

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Karmen Forsman must pay [The landlord/s] $1,219.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
At the hearing, the landlord sought to orally amend their application to include claims for termination and rent arrears. The notice of hearing does not mention these two claims and I am not satisfied that the tenant has had appropriate notice that the hearing would consider claims for termination and rent arrears. Therefore, I declined to allow the landlord to orally amend their application at the hearing. It remains open to the landlord to file a fresh application for termination and rent arrears if they wish.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

WATER RATES

The landlord submitted invoices from the water rates authority, which prove the tenant owes $2,299.82 in outstanding water rates.
The landlord submitted copies of two previous mediated orders from 12 January 2024 and 18 March 2025 for outstanding water rates. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the landlord has acted reasonably to mitigate their loss by taking formal steps to recover outstanding water rates owed by the tenant.
The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates is granted for $2,299.82.

DAMAGE

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. 1
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken at the beginning of the tenancy on 21 March 2022. There are no holes in the walls or doors and the bathroom vanity in the master bedroom appears to be in good condition.
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken on 5 November 2024. There are holes in the walls in the master bedroom and hallway. The door in the master bedroom has a large hole in it and the bathroom vanity is damaged with missing cupboards and drawers.
On the basis of a comparison of the two sets of photographs, I find the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Holes in the walls in the master bedroom and hallway; b. Holes in the master bedroom door; and c. Damage to the bathroom vanity.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord has not made a claim with their insurer.
The tenancy is ongoing and the landlord has not had the repairs fixed yet. The landlord submitted a quote for $2,052.77 to repair the holes in the walls, door and replace the bathroom vanity.
Considering the nature of the damage, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord will have the damage repaired. I find this to be an appropriate case to order compensation on the basis of a quote.
The landlord does not know the age of the bathroom vanity but gave evidence it was most likely around 3 – 4 years old.
As the landlord intends to replace the bathroom vanity with a brand new one, I consider there needs to be a reduction to the amount of compensation to reflect betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the same 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 & 49B. position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be any better or worse off. I consider a reduction of $200.00 to be fair and reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the holes in the walls, door and bathroom vanity is granted for $1,852.77.
The amount ordered is proved.

FILING FEE

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5159199 — net $1,219.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: walls, doors and vanity	$1,852.77	Repairs: walls, doors and vanity
Water rates to 12 June 2025	$2,299.82	Water rates to 12 June 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,219.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,219.59

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Karmen Forsman must pay [The landlord/s] $1,219.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
At the hearing, the landlord sought to orally amend their application to include claims for termination and rent arrears. The notice of hearing does not mention these two claims and I am not satisfied that the tenant has had appropriate notice that the hearing would consider claims for termination and rent arrears. Therefore, I declined to allow the landlord to orally amend their application at the hearing. It remains open to the landlord to file a fresh application for termination and rent arrears if they wish.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

WATER RATES

The landlord submitted invoices from the water rates authority, which prove the tenant owes $2,299.82 in outstanding water rates.
The landlord submitted copies of two previous mediated orders from 12 January 2024 and 18 March 2025 for outstanding water rates. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the landlord has acted reasonably to mitigate their loss by taking formal steps to recover outstanding water rates owed by the tenant.
The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates is granted for $2,299.82.

DAMAGE

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. 1
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken at the beginning of the tenancy on 21 March 2022. There are no holes in the walls or doors and the bathroom vanity in the master bedroom appears to be in good condition.
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken on 5 November 2024. There are holes in the walls in the master bedroom and hallway. The door in the master bedroom has a large hole in it and the bathroom vanity is damaged with missing cupboards and drawers.
On the basis of a comparison of the two sets of photographs, I find the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Holes in the walls in the master bedroom and hallway; b. Holes in the master bedroom door; and c. Damage to the bathroom vanity.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord has not made a claim with their insurer.
The tenancy is ongoing and the landlord has not had the repairs fixed yet. The landlord submitted a quote for $2,052.77 to repair the holes in the walls, door and replace the bathroom vanity.
Considering the nature of the damage, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord will have the damage repaired. I find this to be an appropriate case to order compensation on the basis of a quote.
The landlord does not know the age of the bathroom vanity but gave evidence it was most likely around 3 – 4 years old.
As the landlord intends to replace the bathroom vanity with a brand new one, I consider there needs to be a reduction to the amount of compensation to reflect betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the same 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 & 49B. position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be any better or worse off. I consider a reduction of $200.00 to be fair and reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the holes in the walls, door and bathroom vanity is granted for $1,852.77.
The amount ordered is proved.

FILING FEE

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5159199 — Property damage at 98 Wattle Farm Road, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5159199 — Property damage at 98 Wattle Farm Road, Wattle Downs, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

WATER RATES

DAMAGE

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

WATER RATES

DAMAGE

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions