What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5160311 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 5160311?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5160311?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5160311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11881155-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5160311 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 5160311?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5160311?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5160311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11881155-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

41C Senator Drive, Manurewa, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5160311 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5160311 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Contribution to carpet damage	$500.00	Contribution to carpet damage
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $500.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord has applied for compensation and, if successful, reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 13 February 2020.
The premises were newly built at that time. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 or 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.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In their application, the landlord sought compensation of $345.00 for cleaning. However, at the hearing, the landlord stated the only orders sought were for compensation for repairs for damage to the premises.
I therefore dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning on the basis it was not pursued.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(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 applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Stained carpet requiring complete replacement: estimated cost $3,150.00 +GST; b. Scratches and marks on walls, doors, ceiling and window jams requiring interior painting: estimated cost $3,500 +GST; c. Broken door locks (3): estimated cost $285 +GST; and d. Water damaged kitchen cabinets and missing hardware: estimated cost $400 + GST.
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed the owner has insurance for tenant damage but has not made a claim for any of the above damage. The landlord stated the insurance excess was $1,150 per claim, and each item of damage would be considered a separate claim. The landlord stated this based on his experience with insurers in the past.
The landlord stated the repair work has been completed, however, the landlord did not have a copy of the final invoice. The landlord stated the final invoice was the same as the quoted estimates set out above (for which a written quote dated 5 February 2025 was provided).
The tenant denies liability for the damage described. The only exception to this is that the tenant accepts the sub-tenants in the property did cause some staining to the carpet in two bedrooms. The tenant says they are prepared to make a contribution to the cost of replacing the carpet, but do not consider the tenant is liable for the full cost of replacing all carpet throughout the premises.
The tenant says the scratches and marks on the wall, and issues with internal door locks, are fair wear and tear over the four- or five-year tenancy. The tenant says the water damage under the kitchen sink was caused by a leak which was brought to the landlord’s attention in at least September 2024 but was not remedied. The tenant has supplied an email chain in which the tenant asked for an update on the leak under the sink on 26 September 2024.
I accept that the landlord has proven damage was caused to the carpet, walls and door frames and two door locks during the tenancy. The photographs provided from the entry inspection on 13 February 2020, and the exit inspection on 17 December 2024 demonstrate that.
However, the landlord has not proven that damage was more than fair wear and tear. I accept that the premises was in new condition at the start of the tenancy, however over the five years of the tenancy, it is to be expected that there will be some signs of wear and tear. The scratches on the walls and door frames are within the realm of fair wear and tear. I also note that the tenant has provided proof they engaged a painter decorator to carry out some painting work in December 2024.
I also find the door handles that were not working is more likely a result of fair wear and tear. The landlord stated the bathroom door handle had an internal mechanism that was broken or missing. It is unclear how such a fault could be said to be caused by the tenant. It is more likely to be due to a faulty product, or poor maintenance, or simply normal use over a five-year period.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the water leak under the sink was brought to the landlord’s attention in September 2024. Given the landlord did not take steps to remedy the leak, it is likely the leak caused the water damage to the cabinetry evidence in photos taken in December 2024. I note landlord was unable to identify any hardware missing in the kitchen, as referred to in the contactor’s estimate.
The exception to my findings of wear and tear is that the tenant acknowledges stains were left on the carpet by their sub-tenants. Given that, and given the evidence that the carpet was brand new in 2020, I award the landlord $500 as contribution to repair of the carpet stains.
I note that the landlord failed to provide evidence of the actual cost incurred to replace the carpet, and failed to provide actual evidence as to whether insurance monies were recoverable. I accept however that the amount awarded is likely to be less than any excess charged for insurance money recoverable.
I also note that I have taken 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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
Pursuant to s 102(4)(a) of the RTA, where the applicant is wholly successful the Tribunal must order the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee.
Pursuant to s 102(4)(b) of the RTA, where the applicant is partly successful the Tribunal may order the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee.
The landlord has been only partly successful in their claim. Given the landlord has not succeeded in the majority of their claims, I decline to order the respondent tenant pay the landlord’s applciation fee. Should the parties’ identifying details be suppressed?
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
See s 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
At the hearing, both parties sought suppression of their names. I consider it in the interest of the parties that both parties names be suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5160311 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Contribution to carpet damage	$500.00	Contribution to carpet damage
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $500.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord has applied for compensation and, if successful, reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 13 February 2020.
The premises were newly built at that time. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 or 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.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In their application, the landlord sought compensation of $345.00 for cleaning. However, at the hearing, the landlord stated the only orders sought were for compensation for repairs for damage to the premises.
I therefore dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning on the basis it was not pursued.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(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 applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Stained carpet requiring complete replacement: estimated cost $3,150.00 +GST; b. Scratches and marks on walls, doors, ceiling and window jams requiring interior painting: estimated cost $3,500 +GST; c. Broken door locks (3): estimated cost $285 +GST; and d. Water damaged kitchen cabinets and missing hardware: estimated cost $400 + GST.
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed the owner has insurance for tenant damage but has not made a claim for any of the above damage. The landlord stated the insurance excess was $1,150 per claim, and each item of damage would be considered a separate claim. The landlord stated this based on his experience with insurers in the past.
The landlord stated the repair work has been completed, however, the landlord did not have a copy of the final invoice. The landlord stated the final invoice was the same as the quoted estimates set out above (for which a written quote dated 5 February 2025 was provided).
The tenant denies liability for the damage described. The only exception to this is that the tenant accepts the sub-tenants in the property did cause some staining to the carpet in two bedrooms. The tenant says they are prepared to make a contribution to the cost of replacing the carpet, but do not consider the tenant is liable for the full cost of replacing all carpet throughout the premises.
The tenant says the scratches and marks on the wall, and issues with internal door locks, are fair wear and tear over the four- or five-year tenancy. The tenant says the water damage under the kitchen sink was caused by a leak which was brought to the landlord’s attention in at least September 2024 but was not remedied. The tenant has supplied an email chain in which the tenant asked for an update on the leak under the sink on 26 September 2024.
I accept that the landlord has proven damage was caused to the carpet, walls and door frames and two door locks during the tenancy. The photographs provided from the entry inspection on 13 February 2020, and the exit inspection on 17 December 2024 demonstrate that.
However, the landlord has not proven that damage was more than fair wear and tear. I accept that the premises was in new condition at the start of the tenancy, however over the five years of the tenancy, it is to be expected that there will be some signs of wear and tear. The scratches on the walls and door frames are within the realm of fair wear and tear. I also note that the tenant has provided proof they engaged a painter decorator to carry out some painting work in December 2024.
I also find the door handles that were not working is more likely a result of fair wear and tear. The landlord stated the bathroom door handle had an internal mechanism that was broken or missing. It is unclear how such a fault could be said to be caused by the tenant. It is more likely to be due to a faulty product, or poor maintenance, or simply normal use over a five-year period.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the water leak under the sink was brought to the landlord’s attention in September 2024. Given the landlord did not take steps to remedy the leak, it is likely the leak caused the water damage to the cabinetry evidence in photos taken in December 2024. I note landlord was unable to identify any hardware missing in the kitchen, as referred to in the contactor’s estimate.
The exception to my findings of wear and tear is that the tenant acknowledges stains were left on the carpet by their sub-tenants. Given that, and given the evidence that the carpet was brand new in 2020, I award the landlord $500 as contribution to repair of the carpet stains.
I note that the landlord failed to provide evidence of the actual cost incurred to replace the carpet, and failed to provide actual evidence as to whether insurance monies were recoverable. I accept however that the amount awarded is likely to be less than any excess charged for insurance money recoverable.
I also note that I have taken 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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
Pursuant to s 102(4)(a) of the RTA, where the applicant is wholly successful the Tribunal must order the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee.
Pursuant to s 102(4)(b) of the RTA, where the applicant is partly successful the Tribunal may order the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee.
The landlord has been only partly successful in their claim. Given the landlord has not succeeded in the majority of their claims, I decline to order the respondent tenant pay the landlord’s applciation fee. Should the parties’ identifying details be suppressed?
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
See s 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
At the hearing, both parties sought suppression of their names. I consider it in the interest of the parties that both parties names be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5160311 — Property damage at 41C Senator Drive, Manurewa, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5160311 — Property damage at 41C Senator Drive, Manurewa, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions