What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5201871 about?

The tribunal order states: A suppression order applies to this Order. Some evidence referred to in this

How much money was awarded in case 5201871?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5201871?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5201871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12758168-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5201871 about?

The tribunal order states: A suppression order applies to this Order. Some evidence referred to in this

How much money was awarded in case 5201871?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5201871?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5201871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12758168-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

10A Beverly Place, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5201871 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5201871 — net $5,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to the main bedroom (excluding carpet	$700.00	Repairs to the main bedroom (excluding carpet
Repairs to the middle wall	$700.00	Repairs to the middle wall
Repairs to the dining room wall	$700.00	Repairs to the dining room wall
Repairs to the lounge door	$700.00	Repairs to the lounge door
Repairs to the lounge	$700.00	Repairs to the lounge door
Repairs to the hole in lounge wall	$700.00	Repairs to the hole in lounge wall
Repairs to the two walls in the bedroom	$700.00	Repairs to the two walls in the bedroom
Repairs to the pen marks on the bedroom wall	$700.00	Repairs to the pen marks on the bedroom wall
Repairs to the hole in the wall in bedroom 2	$700.00	Repairs to the hole in the wall in bedroom 2
Repairs to the drawing on the wall in bedroom 2	$700.00	Repairs to the drawing on the wall in bedroom 2
Repairs to the hole in the door in bedroom 2	$700.00	Repairs to the hole in the door in bedroom 2
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,527.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,527.00

Order

A suppression order applies to this Order. Some evidence referred to in this Order has been suppressed in accordance with section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Destiny Sang-yum and Nathan John White must pay Ezystayz Limited Acting Agent For Caesar Family Trust $5,527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Ezystayz Limited Acting Agent For Caesar Family Trust immediately.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The first hearing for this matter took place on 08 August 2025 at Waitakere District Court. The landlord and one of the tenants, Mr White, attended the hearing. The matter was adjourned to allow the landlord to provide an invoice showing the damage claimed had been repaired and the costs incurred.
The second hearing took place on 17 November 2025 via telephone. The landlord attended the hearing. Two attempts were made to contact the tenant by telephone, but they were both unsuccessful.
The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal as to why they would not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord is seeking compensation for damages to the premises and reimbursement of the filing fee. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The party bringing the claim 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 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.
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 during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provide that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 has provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs showing that the premises was in a good condition at the start of the tenancy. The landlord also provided an exit report with photographs showing extensive damage to the premises.
These reports were reviewed at the first hearing which was attended by the tenant. The tenant acknowledged that the damage was caused during the tenancy but said it was caused by his young child [TEXT REDACTED.]
In general, parents are not liable for the negligence of their children. However, parents are under a duty to take reasonable care to control and supervise their minor children. If they fail to do so, they may be liable for loss caused by the parent’s failure to meet such a duty. The liability of parents under the RTA for the actions of their young children have been considered in the District Court decision of Walmsley v Taylor [2001] DCR 711, and in the Tribunal decisions of Housing New Zealand Copr v Driver [2011] NZTT North Shore 1811 and Harrison v Mccraken TT Hamilton TT891/99, 09 July 1999. An important factor in these cases was whether the tenant had breached a duty of care related to the level of parental supervision exercised by the tenant.
As set out at paragraph 8 above, once the landlord has proved that the damage was caused during the tenancy, the burden of proof is on the tenant to prove that the damage was not caused intentionally or carelessly. This is not a case where there was a one-off incident of damage caused by a young child. The damage was extensive and must have occurred on several occasions. [TEXT REDACTED] Based on the evidence available to me, I consider it is more likely than not that the parents failed in their duty of care to control and supervise their child and, therefore, the tenant has not disproved that the damage was intentional or careless.
The landlord has obtained insurance cover for most of the damage. The insurer identified 11 separate claims and has applied the insurance excess for each of the claims. I agree with the insurer’s separate of claims into 11 separate claims. It is clear from the level of damage that the damage caused was from separate events. The landlord confirmed during the second hearing that the landlord is only seeking the insurance excess. The landlord is not seeking the damage that was not covered by the insurance.
As required by section 13A(2) of the RTA, the tenancy agreement records insurance information in the tenancy agreement and records the applicable excess as $700. The landlord’s insurer has applied an insurance excess of $700 for some of the claims and $750 for others. The landlord says this may have occurred because the excess changed during the tenancy.
Where there are changes to the insurance during the tenancy (including to the level of excess), the landlord is obliged under section 13A(4) of the RTA to advise the tenant of the change in writing. At the second hearing the landlord said he could not recall if this was done.
In Tenant v Philpot and Philpot [2021] NZTT 4295509, 4296039 this Tribunal found that were the excess in the tenancy agreement is incorrectly lower than the actual excess, the lower excess applied. I find that the excess in the tenancy agreement of $700 should be applied. I award the excess for $700 for each of the 11 claims. Suppression and filing fee:
Ezystayz Limited Acting Agent For Caesar Family Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.
Neither party has applied for suppression. In accordance with section 95A(4) of the RTA, I have suppressed the evidence relating to sensitive information about a third party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5201871 — net $5,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to the main bedroom (excluding carpet	$700.00	Repairs to the main bedroom (excluding carpet
Repairs to the middle wall	$700.00	Repairs to the middle wall
Repairs to the dining room wall	$700.00	Repairs to the dining room wall
Repairs to the lounge door	$700.00	Repairs to the lounge door
Repairs to the lounge	$700.00	Repairs to the lounge door
Repairs to the hole in lounge wall	$700.00	Repairs to the hole in lounge wall
Repairs to the two walls in the bedroom	$700.00	Repairs to the two walls in the bedroom
Repairs to the pen marks on the bedroom wall	$700.00	Repairs to the pen marks on the bedroom wall
Repairs to the hole in the wall in bedroom 2	$700.00	Repairs to the hole in the wall in bedroom 2
Repairs to the drawing on the wall in bedroom 2	$700.00	Repairs to the drawing on the wall in bedroom 2
Repairs to the hole in the door in bedroom 2	$700.00	Repairs to the hole in the door in bedroom 2
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,527.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,527.00

Order

A suppression order applies to this Order. Some evidence referred to in this Order has been suppressed in accordance with section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Destiny Sang-yum and Nathan John White must pay Ezystayz Limited Acting Agent For Caesar Family Trust $5,527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Ezystayz Limited Acting Agent For Caesar Family Trust immediately.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The first hearing for this matter took place on 08 August 2025 at Waitakere District Court. The landlord and one of the tenants, Mr White, attended the hearing. The matter was adjourned to allow the landlord to provide an invoice showing the damage claimed had been repaired and the costs incurred.
The second hearing took place on 17 November 2025 via telephone. The landlord attended the hearing. Two attempts were made to contact the tenant by telephone, but they were both unsuccessful.
The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal as to why they would not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord is seeking compensation for damages to the premises and reimbursement of the filing fee. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The party bringing the claim 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 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.
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 during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provide that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 has provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs showing that the premises was in a good condition at the start of the tenancy. The landlord also provided an exit report with photographs showing extensive damage to the premises.
These reports were reviewed at the first hearing which was attended by the tenant. The tenant acknowledged that the damage was caused during the tenancy but said it was caused by his young child [TEXT REDACTED.]
In general, parents are not liable for the negligence of their children. However, parents are under a duty to take reasonable care to control and supervise their minor children. If they fail to do so, they may be liable for loss caused by the parent’s failure to meet such a duty. The liability of parents under the RTA for the actions of their young children have been considered in the District Court decision of Walmsley v Taylor [2001] DCR 711, and in the Tribunal decisions of Housing New Zealand Copr v Driver [2011] NZTT North Shore 1811 and Harrison v Mccraken TT Hamilton TT891/99, 09 July 1999. An important factor in these cases was whether the tenant had breached a duty of care related to the level of parental supervision exercised by the tenant.
As set out at paragraph 8 above, once the landlord has proved that the damage was caused during the tenancy, the burden of proof is on the tenant to prove that the damage was not caused intentionally or carelessly. This is not a case where there was a one-off incident of damage caused by a young child. The damage was extensive and must have occurred on several occasions. [TEXT REDACTED] Based on the evidence available to me, I consider it is more likely than not that the parents failed in their duty of care to control and supervise their child and, therefore, the tenant has not disproved that the damage was intentional or careless.
The landlord has obtained insurance cover for most of the damage. The insurer identified 11 separate claims and has applied the insurance excess for each of the claims. I agree with the insurer’s separate of claims into 11 separate claims. It is clear from the level of damage that the damage caused was from separate events. The landlord confirmed during the second hearing that the landlord is only seeking the insurance excess. The landlord is not seeking the damage that was not covered by the insurance.
As required by section 13A(2) of the RTA, the tenancy agreement records insurance information in the tenancy agreement and records the applicable excess as $700. The landlord’s insurer has applied an insurance excess of $700 for some of the claims and $750 for others. The landlord says this may have occurred because the excess changed during the tenancy.
Where there are changes to the insurance during the tenancy (including to the level of excess), the landlord is obliged under section 13A(4) of the RTA to advise the tenant of the change in writing. At the second hearing the landlord said he could not recall if this was done.
In Tenant v Philpot and Philpot [2021] NZTT 4295509, 4296039 this Tribunal found that were the excess in the tenancy agreement is incorrectly lower than the actual excess, the lower excess applied. I find that the excess in the tenancy agreement of $700 should be applied. I award the excess for $700 for each of the 11 claims. Suppression and filing fee:
Ezystayz Limited Acting Agent For Caesar Family Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.
Neither party has applied for suppression. In accordance with section 95A(4) of the RTA, I have suppressed the evidence relating to sensitive information about a third party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5201871 — Property damage at 10A Beverly Place, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5201871 — Property damage at 10A Beverly Place, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

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