What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5161011 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 5161011?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5161011?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5161011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11766662-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5161011 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 5161011?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5161011?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5161011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11766662-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5161011 — Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 28 April 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 15 December 2023 and ended on 14 December 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

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.
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that:
“ like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $1,000.00. The landlord’s claim to the Tribunal is for less than this amount and the insurance cover is therefore not relevant to this claim.
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 that following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The premises were only one year old when this tenancy commenced. The landlord accepts that the tenant raised issues with the standard of the paint work in the stairwell early in the tenancy.
The landlord arranged for a contractor to repair the chips and scratches in the stairwell. A copy of that contractor’s invoice and photos taken by the contractor of the work after it had been completed were provided by the landlord. The landlord says that she reviewed the photos and considered that the work had been done to an appropriate standard.
The landlord provided photos of the stairwell area from the end of the tenancy and says that further scratches and marks have occurred since the work was carried out at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice from the contractor who carried out the work. The contractor also provided photos of the condition at the end of his work. The landlord seeks compensation of $495.00 for the work carried out.
The tenants say that the they noticed damage to the stairwell area almost immediately upon moving into the premises. They advised the landlord. A contractor came in and carried out further work. The tenant says that she told the property manager that in her view, the work had not been completed to a good standard. Marks were still present and they had just been painted over.
In the tenant’s opinion, the area at the top of the stair well was an area of high use and further that any further marks to the area were as a result of fear wear and tear. The area included the top of the stairwell and the top of a light switch. There were four tenants at living at the premises throughout the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenants were provided with an outgoing report by the landlord. The report made no reference to the marks on the stairwell. The damage was only raised by the landlord in correspondence with the tenant dated 24 January 2025, six weeks after the tenancy had ended.
The burden of proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy is on the landlord. They must prove that this occurred to the civil standard of more likely than not. I am persuaded by the contractor’s photos that it is more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord is also required to prove on the civil standard that the damage did not occur as a result of fair wear and tear.
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629,4169403.
In Nixon V Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT216/94,30 January 1996 the District Court held that a tenant would not be liable for fear wear and tear, meaning damage during ordinary use. “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition... Where a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fair wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fear wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.”
The damage is in a high use area. There was no suggestion that damage had been caused by the tenants’ unreasonable conduct. I do not think that it is a coincidence that almost identical damage had occurred to the same area during the previous tenancy.
In the Tribunal’s view, the damage has been caused by the tenants as a result of fair wear and tear. The tenants have raised fair wear and tear as a plausible explanation for the damage. In those circumstances, the claim is dismissed.
The tenants applied for name suppression. The tenants have been wholly successful in this application and suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 28 April 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 15 December 2023 and ended on 14 December 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

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.
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that:
“ like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $1,000.00. The landlord’s claim to the Tribunal is for less than this amount and the insurance cover is therefore not relevant to this claim.
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 that following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The premises were only one year old when this tenancy commenced. The landlord accepts that the tenant raised issues with the standard of the paint work in the stairwell early in the tenancy.
The landlord arranged for a contractor to repair the chips and scratches in the stairwell. A copy of that contractor’s invoice and photos taken by the contractor of the work after it had been completed were provided by the landlord. The landlord says that she reviewed the photos and considered that the work had been done to an appropriate standard.
The landlord provided photos of the stairwell area from the end of the tenancy and says that further scratches and marks have occurred since the work was carried out at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice from the contractor who carried out the work. The contractor also provided photos of the condition at the end of his work. The landlord seeks compensation of $495.00 for the work carried out.
The tenants say that the they noticed damage to the stairwell area almost immediately upon moving into the premises. They advised the landlord. A contractor came in and carried out further work. The tenant says that she told the property manager that in her view, the work had not been completed to a good standard. Marks were still present and they had just been painted over.
In the tenant’s opinion, the area at the top of the stair well was an area of high use and further that any further marks to the area were as a result of fear wear and tear. The area included the top of the stairwell and the top of a light switch. There were four tenants at living at the premises throughout the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenants were provided with an outgoing report by the landlord. The report made no reference to the marks on the stairwell. The damage was only raised by the landlord in correspondence with the tenant dated 24 January 2025, six weeks after the tenancy had ended.
The burden of proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy is on the landlord. They must prove that this occurred to the civil standard of more likely than not. I am persuaded by the contractor’s photos that it is more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord is also required to prove on the civil standard that the damage did not occur as a result of fair wear and tear.
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629,4169403.
In Nixon V Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT216/94,30 January 1996 the District Court held that a tenant would not be liable for fear wear and tear, meaning damage during ordinary use. “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition... Where a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fair wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fear wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.”
The damage is in a high use area. There was no suggestion that damage had been caused by the tenants’ unreasonable conduct. I do not think that it is a coincidence that almost identical damage had occurred to the same area during the previous tenancy.
In the Tribunal’s view, the damage has been caused by the tenants as a result of fair wear and tear. The tenants have raised fair wear and tear as a plausible explanation for the damage. In those circumstances, the claim is dismissed.
The tenants applied for name suppression. The tenants have been wholly successful in this application and suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5161011 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5161011 — Property damage

At a glance

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

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