What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5159202 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 5159202?

Compensation: Oven not working for 3…: $80.00 awarded to tenant; Expenses Related To Early Terminatio…: $510.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5159202?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5159202?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12162038-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5159202 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 5159202?

Compensation: Oven not working for 3…: $80.00 awarded to tenant; Expenses Related To Early Terminatio…: $510.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5159202?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5159202?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12162038-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

28 Chalgrove Road, Huntington, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5159202 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5159202 — net $430.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Expenses related to early termination	$510.60		Expenses related to early termination
Compensation: Oven not working for 3 weeks		$80.00	Oven not working for 3 weeks
Total award	$510.60	$80.00
Net award	$430.60
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$430.60

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5159202 — net $430.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Expenses related to early termination	$510.60		Expenses related to early termination
Compensation: Oven not working for 3 weeks		$80.00	Oven not working for 3 weeks
Total award	$510.60	$80.00
Net award	$430.60
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$430.60

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Baseden Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Omahuta Properties Ltd $430.60 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Baseden Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Omahuta Properties Ltd: $430.60 [The tenant/s]: $1,769.40

Reasons

The landlord’s agent and the tenants attended the hearing held by video conference on 23 June 2025.
This tenancy started in August 2018 and ended in January 2025 after the tenants gave notice and moved out.
Both parties have made applications to the Tribunal.
The main dispute is about the landlord’s claim for compensation to remedy patch painting done by the tenants at the end of the tenancy. The tenants removed adhesive “3M” hooks from walls and then repaired several areas where the paint surface had been damaged by the removal. The landlord says the paint patches are visible and have damaged the walls.
The landlord’s application seeks compensation of $9,775.00 based on a quote to sand and paint one coat on all walls in the house, and to plaster, sand and paint two ceilings, and one side of five doors.
The tenants disagree with the amount of the landlord’s claim for compensation for repainting. They also seek compensation for delays in repairs during the tenancy and for stress caused by the landlord’s handling of the damage situation. Agreed
The tenants agree to pay the invoice of $510.60 for advertising and landlord time related to the landlord’s consent to end the tenancy prior to the end of a fixed term. I have made this order. The legal principles that apply to compensation for damage
For a claim for compensation for damage to premises to be successful, a landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The standard of care expected of a tenant is that of an ordinary careful person.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3)(b) RTA.
Any compensation for loss or damage generally aims to return the innocent party to the same position it would have been in if the other party had not caused the damage. This involves consideration of the age and condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
Court decisions make it clear that any assessment of loss must also be founded on reasonableness. This principle comes from an English House of Lords decision called Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyth [1995] UKHL 8. For example, if a kitchen bench has a small chip or burn, it may not be reasonable to replace the whole bench.

Is there damage caused by patching and painting after removal of 3M hooks?

The tenants used “3M” adhesive hooks to attach pictures to the walls during the tenancy. These hooks are specified in the tenancy agreement as being the only allowed method of doing so (clause “Alterations” on page 7).
There is no dispute that the tenants then removed the hooks from walls throughout the house as part of moving out of the premises at the end of the tenancy. They said they did this because the landlord’s “End of tenancy checklist” says: All hooks that tenants put on need to be removed and repair the wall if any damage caused.
There is also no dispute that the tenants have patched (where necessary) and patch painted the places on the walls that were damaged by the removal of the hooks. The tenant explained that removing the 3M hooks took off quite large pieces of paint in some places.
The first exit inspection was done on 21 January 2025 and photos were supplied in evidence. These show multiple small paint patches on many walls throughout the house. The paint is clearly a different, darker colour from the rest of the wall.
The landlord’s agent notified the tenants the patches would need to be repainted and advised them a painter had estimated a cost of $10,000 - $12,000 plus GST.
The tenant agreed that he was not happy with the result of his patch-painting but thought the quote was far too high. He offered to repaint the walls himself saying he was a “competent painter” and the landlord agreed to this saying to “ensure the painting is done professionally and that the colour is the same as the original paint colour”.
The new tenants had possession of the property by then and were in the process of moving in. One of the tenants returned to the premises and repainted over the first paint patches.
The landlord has supplied photographs taken after the second repaint. The landlord agrees that the colour match is better however says the paint gloss used is incorrect so the patches are obvious and must be remedied.
The tenants say they should not be liable for following the landlord’s end of tenancy instructions to remove all 3M hooks used and repair any damage. They say an agent who conducted the first exit inspection instructed them to patch paint but that there was no response from the landlord to their request to be told the exact paint colour. They say they made several visits to a paint shop to match the colour and have repainted to a reasonable standard.
The tenants also object to the amount of the landlord’s claim on the basis that the walls were not perfect when they moved in, and they had lived in the house for over six years so there should be allowance made for wear and tear over this time. They supplied the ingoing inspection checklist after the hearing. This records “walls/doors” in all rooms as “marked” or “m/marks”. 1 There is a general note at the end of the checklist saying, “walls marked”.
The other issue relates to insurance. The landlord supplied evidence that an insurance claim for damage caused by the patch painting has been declined under the terms of the policy which excludes any damage caused by “any process of cleaning, repairing or restoring”.
My decisions are:- a. The landlord has proved there is damage to several walls caused by the second repaint of patches applied by the tenants. The photos satisfy me that the patches are clearly visible, there are several of them in each room, and the patches are of a large size. 2 b. The damage from patch painting is not “wear and tear”. Wear and tear means expected deterioration from everyday, normal use. Repair work is not wear and tear. c. The landlord’s oral evidence and the written quote from the contractor (for repainting) satisfy me that the paint used for the second repaint is the “wrong sheen” and a “slightly mis-matched colour”. 3 I accept that this was unintentional however I consider that an ordinary, careful person who is painting patches on to an existing paint surface should check the sheen of paint to be used. That is, whether the existing paint is gloss or matte. The landlord cannot hold the tenant to a “professional” standard of painting, but the tenant did say in the email to the landlord that he was a “competent” painter. I find the tenants took reasonable care to match the colour but not to match the sheen. The paint patches are therefore careless damage. d. I agree that the landlord has some contributory responsibility for the damage. This is because the tenancy agreement permits only the use of 3M hooks and the landlord’s end of tenancy checklist requires tenants to remove these and repair any damage. This requirement conflicts with the agent’s advice in the hearing that the tenants would not have been held responsible if they had left the walls as they were (without removing the 3M hooks). If the 1 I do not know what this means so interpret it as “minor marks”. 2 Most appear to be between 40 to 75 centimetres square in size. 3 As described on the written quote. tenants had left the hooks on the walls, or consulted with the landlord before removing them or when it became obvious the removal was damaging the walls, this damage would not have occurred. Their decisions to remove and repaint were made after following the landlord’s exit instructions. The landlord could consider amending the tenancy agreement and exit instructions particularly in light of the exclusion under the insurance policy of cover for cleaning, repairing or restoring. 4 e. The landlord’s photographs show six or seven small areas where plaster patches are visible and an additional eight or nine places where small strips of adhesive residue remain on the walls. The landlord did not supply ingoing inspection photographs so cannot show that the plaster patches and adhesive residue are damage that occurred during this tenancy. The landlord did supply photos from inspections in 2019 however the house is occupied at this time so existing marks may be hidden behind furniture and the tenants’ pictures which are hanging on the walls. The landlord has not proved that the plaster patches and adhesive residue is damage that occurred during this tenancy. The tenants are not liable for this damage.
I must now value the amount of any compensation. There are several factors to consider:- a. The quote for repainting includes work that is not the responsibility of the tenants. The landlord accepts that quoted work to two ceilings and five doors should be excluded. The areas of plaster and adhesive residue must also be excluded. b. The landlord did not provide exact locations or identification of each of the patch-painted areas. The quote is for repainting twenty-three walls. It is not known how many of these, if any, are walls damaged by plaster or adhesive residue for which the tenants are not liable. c. The walls were marked at the start of the tenancy. d. This was a six-and-a-half-year tenancy and the interior of the house was last painted more than ten years ago. e. There is only one quote supplied. It is preferable to provide more than one quote as there can be substantial variation. f. The property has been re-tenanted without the repainting work being done meaning the landlord has not incurred a cost yet, and it is not known whether or when it will. 4 For example, the tenancy agreement and/or exit instructions could say that adhesive hooks should only be removed if this can be done without causing damage to the wall and that if a tenant is unsure how best to remove hooks, they should consult with the landlord before doing so. The landlord could consider a warning against any “cleaning, repairing or restoring” advising that any damage caused by doing so is not covered by the landlord’s insurance. g. An assessment of what is reasonable in the circumstances. The photographs taken after the repaint are of bare walls. If the work has not been done and the new tenants have been living there, they will have their own pictures and items on the walls and furniture in place. It is not known how visible the paint patches are in these conditions.
Taking these factors into account, I assess compensation as follows:- a. Firstly, I must calculate how much of the quoted cost relates to the paint patches for which the tenants are liable. i. The full quote is $9,775.00 for 23 walls, 2 ceilings, 5 doors = 30 items. This is $325.84 for each item. ii. I deduct $2,280.88 for 2 ceilings and 5 doors ($325.84 x 7) for which the tenants are not liable. iii. I deduct a further 20% from the remainder ($7,494.12) as my estimate of the area affected by plaster patches and adhesive residue for which the tenants are not liable. This is a deduction of $1,498.82. b. The result is that the maximum amount the tenants could be liable for is the quoted cost to repaint one coat on the walls damaged by the paint patches which I assess as $5,995.30. ($9,775.00 - $2,280.88 - $1,498.82) c. The landlord is entitled to be returned to the position they would have been in if the damage from the paint patches had not occurred. This is that the house was painted at least ten years ago, walls in all rooms of the house were marked at the start of the tenancy and this family has lived in the house for an additional six and a half years. Arguably, the house would have been due for repainting at the end of this tenancy as part of normal maintenance. The landlord’s agent disagrees and says the house would not have needed painting for a good while. d. My decision is that although the tenants did cause damage to some of the walls, the landlord has not suffered a loss. I am satisfied that the interior of the house is due to be repainted within about the next two years, and as the landlord has not yet done the work it has not incurred a cost to date. e. In addition, my view that the landlord has some contributory responsibility for the damage reinforces my decision not to award compensation to the landlord. f. The fact that insurance was declined makes no difference to the outcome in this case as I have decided the landlord has not suffered a loss. It may have been significant in other circumstances, and I again suggest the landlord considers the impact of the insurance exclusion for future tenancies or reviews its insurance cover.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach its maintenance obligations?

The tenants say the landlord took too long to repair the oven and that this caused them to spend more on pre-prepared food and reduced the facilities available to them.
The evidence shows it took 3 weeks and 2 days from when the landlord was notified until the oven was repaired. I agree that this is too long because an oven is central to daily living.
The landlord points out that this happened in 2018 and asks whether compensation should be awarded so long after the event. I agree with this except that the tenants did email the landlord at the time and request a $40.00 per week rent reduction due to the delay. They received no response.
I consider their request reasonable and award $80.00 ($40.00 per week for two weeks). I do not award compensation for the first week as it is reasonable to expect there to be some delay in having the repair completed.
The tenants say the paint on the bathroom ceiling was flaking for many years and that bits would fall on them. The landlord said it delayed repair until it was sure there was no leak or underlying issue before repainting. I find this to be reasonable and consider any detriment to be minor, so dismiss this claim.
The tenants also raised a concern about smoke alarms in the house saying that these stopped working so they replaced them at their own cost. However, they acknowledge that they did not inform the landlord at the time that the alarms had stopped working.
A landlord is responsible for ensuring that smoke alarms are fully operational at the start of a tenancy and remain operational “at all subsequent times” during the tenancy; see regulations 5(2) and 7 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms) Regulations 2016. It is best practice for a landlord to check the operation of smoke alarms during regular inspections.
The landlord accepts that it did not check the smoke alarms regularly. In this case, it was the tenants who discovered the issue. If they had notified the landlord (as part of their duty to notify of any damage or repairs needed), the landlord would have been required to replace them; s40(1)(d) RTA.
I do not award compensation to the tenants because they did not notify the landlord of the issue at the time nor provide a receipt or invoice to substantiate any reimbursement.

Should the tenants receive compensation for stress and humiliation?

The tenants say they suffered stress and humiliation caused by the landlord not responding to their enquiries about insurance cover and smoke alarms, requiring them to repaint while the new tenants were in possession, and pursuing them for compensation to an extent they believe is unfair and unjustified.
The Tribunal does have the ability to award compensation for stress and humiliation although a breach must of course be proven first.
The tenants are correct that a landlord is required to disclose whether premises are insured, the amount of any excess and that the full policy can be provided. This is required to be included in tenancy agreements where the tenancy starts on or after 27 August 2019 or must be provided within a reasonable time if requested; see s13A(2) RTA.
The tenants asked for insurance information on 23 January 2025 and were advised on 27 February 2025 that the claim had been declined. There is not enough evidence to show the landlord failed to respond within a reasonable time.
The landlord did not provide the tenants with records about the smoke alarms. It seems that it was not keeping any records because it did not realise it should be checking them. It now knows that it does need to do so to make sure alarms remain operational.
The tenants say it was humiliating to go back to the premises to repaint. My reading of the emails is that the landlord did not require them to do this, they chose to do so to improve the quality of the repainting work without engaging a contractor. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask that the first repaint be improved as these first patches were noticeably darker in colour.
The final point raised by the tenants is that the landlord was unrealistic in claiming they were liable for the full cost of remedying the paint patches and that this has caused a great deal of stress and resulted in these proceedings.
I have decided not to award compensation for stress and humiliation. I accept that these events, and particularly the dispute about the patch painting, has been stressful and resulted in these proceedings.
However, the landlord formed a view that the tenants were liable for damage to the premises and is entitled to test that view in the Tribunal. That is primarily what has happened here. It turns out that I do not agree there has been a loss proven in this case but that does not mean the landlord was wrong to take the view it did.
I do point out that a landlord must not demand, request, or accept from a tenant, payment of an amount that exceeds the tenant’s liability or ask them to do work of a value that is more than their liability; see s49D RTA.
This means a landlord cannot ask a tenant to pay more, per event 5 of damage, than the insurance excess (if this applies) or four weeks’ rent; see s49B(3) RTA. Conclusion, filing fees and suppression
The tenants lived at the premises for more than six years and the landlord told me they were in the top 5% of tenants. I accept that they were angry and stressed about these events and it has taken more than six months to be resolved. However, this stress is not due to a significant breach by the landlords or by the tenants. In the words of the landlord’s agent at the hearing, the situation is “unfortunate”.
Both parties have paid filing fees and as this was a genuine dispute, I make no order about these.
The tenants have been substantially successful with the outcome of the application and future tenancies may be affected so I suppress their names.
The landlord was entitled to bring the claim but has not been successful. It is a professional landlord, so its interests are unlikely to be as affected. I do not suppress its name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5159202 — Tenancy dispute at 28 Chalgrove Road, Huntington, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5159202 — Tenancy dispute at 28 Chalgrove Road, Huntington, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is there damage caused by patching and painting after removal of 3M hooks?

Did the landlord breach its maintenance obligations?

Should the tenants receive compensation for stress and humiliation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is there damage caused by patching and painting after removal of 3M hooks?

Did the landlord breach its maintenance obligations?

Should the tenants receive compensation for stress and humiliation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions