What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208272 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 5208272?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Remote: $135.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208272?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208272?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12223725-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208272 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 5208272?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Remote: $135.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208272?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208272?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12223725-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5208272 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5208272 — net $909.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace garage remote	$135.00	Replace garage remote
Painting	$517.50	Painting
Repair tile trim	$230.00	Repair tile trim
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$909.50
Bond	$3,270.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$909.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $909.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,270.00 (BN-00055698) immediately apportioned as follows: Rentex Limited as Agent for Nah-Jung Lee, Hyung Kum Kim: $909.50 Siyi Jin: $2,360.5

Reasons

Introduction

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a new build property which the landlord rented to [the tenant]. The tenancy was for around 18 months, from August 2023 to 5 March 2025. For part of that time, [the tenant] herself was not living at the property.
When the tenancy ended, the landlord took the view that the tenant was responsible for damage to the premises and a disagreement arose about release of the tenant’s bond. The tenant applied to the Tribunal first to have her bond refunded. The landlord responded with an application setting out its compensation claims.
The landlord says that damages was caused to walls, kitchen flooring and guttering.
The Tribunal needs to decide whether damage was caused to the premises that the tenant is responsible for and if so, what compensation should be paid.

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.
The landlord has insurance but has not made a claim. It has not completed any of the repairs it says are necessary and has relet the premises in their current condition.
The tenant agrees that a garage remote was not returned at the end of the tenancy and the landlord should be compensated for the replacement cost which is proved by the invoice provided.
A question that needs to be considered when looking at each of the damage claims, is what allowance should be made for fair wear and tear which tenant is not liable for.
In the case of Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT216/94 (as cited in “Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand by Stewart Benson p 122) the District Court noted: “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition.... [W]here 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 fair wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.”
For a newly built property, any deterioration in condition will result from the first tenancy and will be immediately obvious. Painting
Photographs provided by the landlord show significant damage to paint on a wall where an adhesive light was stuck on by one of the occupants and to a window sill which has been damaged by something being placed on it.
I find it proved that damage is more than fair wear and tear.
Other photographs show small marks, which seem more likely than not to be the result of normal use.
The landlord has provided a quote for all of the proposed painting work, including that small marks.
I award compensation of part of the quoted painting cost. Gutter
Photographs provided by the landlord show a small indentation in a gutter next to the deck. The evidence does not prove, on balance, that the damage occurred during the tenancy or that any loss has been caused to the landlord.
Thar claim is dismissed. Kitchen floor
After the tenant vacated, marks were visible on the laminate floor in the kitchen. The landlord has provided only some very close up photographs of those marks which makes it difficult to assess the extent or location of those marks or their overall effect on the condition of the premises.
The tenant says that she had stools which were uses, in the normal way, on those floors.
Flooring will inevitably sustain marks from usual use. As noted, any marks to new floors will be immediately obvious.
I do not find it proved that the marks result from other than fair wear. The premises having been relet in current condition it is not clear that any loss has or necessarily will, be caused to the landlord. That claim is dismissed. Tile Edging
There is a metal edging to tiled floors in the laundry. It has been bent in places.
Although the bends are relatively minor, the evidence suggests it is more than likely that the damage was caused by moving appliances over that part of the floor.
The tenant took the responsible step of engaging movers the move the furniture. He is though, responsible for their actions.
I do find it proved on balance that the damage is more than fair wear and tear that will need to be fixed and the landlord should be compensated for the cost, as proved by the quote provided.
Because the landlord has had claims upheld, I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5208272 — net $909.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace garage remote	$135.00	Replace garage remote
Painting	$517.50	Painting
Repair tile trim	$230.00	Repair tile trim
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$909.50
Bond	$3,270.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$909.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $909.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,270.00 (BN-00055698) immediately apportioned as follows: Rentex Limited as Agent for Nah-Jung Lee, Hyung Kum Kim: $909.50 Siyi Jin: $2,360.5

Reasons

Introduction

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a new build property which the landlord rented to [the tenant]. The tenancy was for around 18 months, from August 2023 to 5 March 2025. For part of that time, [the tenant] herself was not living at the property.
When the tenancy ended, the landlord took the view that the tenant was responsible for damage to the premises and a disagreement arose about release of the tenant’s bond. The tenant applied to the Tribunal first to have her bond refunded. The landlord responded with an application setting out its compensation claims.
The landlord says that damages was caused to walls, kitchen flooring and guttering.
The Tribunal needs to decide whether damage was caused to the premises that the tenant is responsible for and if so, what compensation should be paid.

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.
The landlord has insurance but has not made a claim. It has not completed any of the repairs it says are necessary and has relet the premises in their current condition.
The tenant agrees that a garage remote was not returned at the end of the tenancy and the landlord should be compensated for the replacement cost which is proved by the invoice provided.
A question that needs to be considered when looking at each of the damage claims, is what allowance should be made for fair wear and tear which tenant is not liable for.
In the case of Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT216/94 (as cited in “Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand by Stewart Benson p 122) the District Court noted: “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition.... [W]here 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 fair wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.”
For a newly built property, any deterioration in condition will result from the first tenancy and will be immediately obvious. Painting
Photographs provided by the landlord show significant damage to paint on a wall where an adhesive light was stuck on by one of the occupants and to a window sill which has been damaged by something being placed on it.
I find it proved that damage is more than fair wear and tear.
Other photographs show small marks, which seem more likely than not to be the result of normal use.
The landlord has provided a quote for all of the proposed painting work, including that small marks.
I award compensation of part of the quoted painting cost. Gutter
Photographs provided by the landlord show a small indentation in a gutter next to the deck. The evidence does not prove, on balance, that the damage occurred during the tenancy or that any loss has been caused to the landlord.
Thar claim is dismissed. Kitchen floor
After the tenant vacated, marks were visible on the laminate floor in the kitchen. The landlord has provided only some very close up photographs of those marks which makes it difficult to assess the extent or location of those marks or their overall effect on the condition of the premises.
The tenant says that she had stools which were uses, in the normal way, on those floors.
Flooring will inevitably sustain marks from usual use. As noted, any marks to new floors will be immediately obvious.
I do not find it proved that the marks result from other than fair wear. The premises having been relet in current condition it is not clear that any loss has or necessarily will, be caused to the landlord. That claim is dismissed. Tile Edging
There is a metal edging to tiled floors in the laundry. It has been bent in places.
Although the bends are relatively minor, the evidence suggests it is more than likely that the damage was caused by moving appliances over that part of the floor.
The tenant took the responsible step of engaging movers the move the furniture. He is though, responsible for their actions.
I do find it proved on balance that the damage is more than fair wear and tear that will need to be fixed and the landlord should be compensated for the cost, as proved by the quote provided.
Because the landlord has had claims upheld, I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208272 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208272 — Property damage

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