What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5230952 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 5230952?

Cleaning: $362.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,595.71 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $551.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $114.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $2,124.13 awarded to landlord; Painting: $594.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5230952?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5230952?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12463259-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5230952 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 5230952?

Cleaning: $362.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,595.71 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $551.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $114.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $2,124.13 awarded to landlord; Painting: $594.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5230952?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5230952?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12463259-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

49 Tasman View Road, Bethells Beach, RD 1, Bethells Tenancy Tribunal Case 5230952 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5230952 — net $3,208.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 February 2025	$2,595.71	Rent arrears to 13 February 2025
Repairs: Doors	$2,124.13	Repairs: Doors
Repairs: Painting	$594.28	Repairs: Painting
Carpet Cleaning	$362.25	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Carpet	$551.00	Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Curtains	$114.00	Repairs: Curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,208.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,208.37

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5230952 — net $3,208.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 February 2025	$2,595.71	Rent arrears to 13 February 2025
Repairs: Doors	$2,124.13	Repairs: Doors
Repairs: Painting	$594.28	Repairs: Painting
Carpet Cleaning	$362.25	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Carpet	$551.00	Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Curtains	$114.00	Repairs: Curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,208.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,208.37

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Elliot Earp must pay [The landlord/s] $3,208.37 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 25 September 2025.
The tenancy began on 14 February 2024 and ended on 13 February 2025. The tenant does not dispute the landlord’s claim for rent arrears of $2,595.71, which is granted by consent. The tenant disputes the landlord’s claim for compensation for repairs totalling $5,740.13. The only issue I need to determine is whether the tenant is responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy and if so, how much compensation they should pay the landlord.
The tenant filed a cross-application however, only paid the balance of the filing fee yesterday, 24 September 2025. Therefore, the application was not processed in time for the hearing today and I declined to adjourn the landlord’s application. The parties will be notified of the date and time of the hearing to determine the tenant’s application in due course. Standard of proof
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they 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 Katipo 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 of 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 at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

The law

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. 1
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. 2
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. 3
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 4
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). 5
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). 6
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damaging the following areas of the premises: a. Internal doors (x3) b. Walls c. Carpet d. Curtains
The landlord withdrew their claims for compensation for the following items at the hearing: a. Power point b. Lightbulbs c. Window latch d. Carpet in the lounge 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 2 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 3 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(1). 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(a). 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(b). Internal doors Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the following internal doors were damaged during the tenancy: a. Hot water cupboard b. Bedroom 1 & 2
The landlord also claims the wardrobe door for bedroom 3 was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims they found it underneath the house and secured it themselves.
The landlord seeks compensation of $2,786.63 to replace the doors.
The landlord claims the tenant tried to repair the doors in bedrooms 1 & 2, but the repair job was inadequate, and the doors had to be replaced.
The landlord submitted invoices for $310.50 and $905.63 to locate and install replacement doors. The landlord also submitted an invoice for $1,158.00 for the purchase two new doors. Additionally, the landlord seeks $412.50 for their time and labour.
The tenant accepts the following internal doors were damaged during the tenancy by a friend who was living with the tenant: a. Hot water cupboard b. Bedrooms 1 & 2
The tenant accepts the wardrobe door in bedroom 3 was missing at the end of the tenancy, but claims they returned to the premises and reinstalled it.
The tenant claims the repairs they completed were adequate and it was not reasonable for the landlord to replace the doors in bedrooms 1 and 2. Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs of the internal doors taken at the beginning of the tenancy. No damage is noted on any of the internal doors. In comparison, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show damage to the following doors: a. Hot water cupboard b. Entry doors to bedroom 1 & 2
The photographs show the doors in bedrooms 1 and 2 with large patches of white filler in them. The tenant returned to the premises after the exit photographs were taken to sand and stain the white filler. The landlord submitted photographs of the doors after they were stained. The colour difference is obvious, and the repair is noticeable. It was reasonable for the landlord to replace the two bedroom doors in these circumstances.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied the doors in bedrooms 1 and 2, and the hot water cupboard door, were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant is responsible for the actions of their friend who damaged the doors, because their friend was in the premises with the tenant’s permission.
I now turn to consider the wardrobe door in bedroom 3. It is present in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy but missing in the photographs taken at the end.
The tenant claims they replaced the wardrobe door themselves. The tenant submitted their own photographs of the doors inside the premises, but none of these show the wardrobe door in bedroom 3 has been reinstalled. Therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant reinstalled the wardrobe door in bedroom 3 themselves. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the owner located the missing wardrobe door and reinstalled it themselves.
The landlord submitted invoices for $310.50 and $905.63.
The invoice for $310.50 is the cost incurred for a tradesperson to locate second hand replacement doors for bedrooms 1 and 2, which they were unable to do. It also includes time spent tidying up the drain hose by the back door, which the tenant is not responsible for. I consider a reduction of $100.00 to reflect this is reasonable.
The invoice for $905.63 is the cost incurred for a tradesperson to install the two bedroom doors, including hinges and door handles. No reduction is necessary for this invoice.
The landlord also submitted a receipt for the purchase of two new Rimu doors for $1,158.00. The landlord does not know how old the doors were at the end of the tenancy. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show them to be in good condition, despite any age. Therefore, I consider only a slight reduction is necessary to reflect betterment and depreciation. The landlord must be returned to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. They must not be any better or worse off. I consider a reduction of $250.00 is reasonable.
The landlord seeks a further $412.50 for their time and labour in locating, purchasing and delivering the doors, as well as installing the wardrobe door. The landlord has charged themselves out at $75.00 per hour, which is a high rate. The Tribunal sees numerous applications for compensation for repairs. The average hourly rate is $35.00 - $55.00 per hour. A landlord cannot complete work themselves to try to minimise their loss and then seek to recover an amount from the tenant equivalent to, or more than, the likely cost a professional would have charged.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for their time and labour is granted for a nominal amount of $100.00.
The landlord did not replace the hot water cupboard door, because the damage was minimal. Therefore, I make no make an order for compensation for the hot water cupboard door.
To summarise, the landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the doors is granted for the following amounts: a. $210.50 for the cost incurred in hiring a tradesperson to try to locate replacement doors. b. $905.63 for the cost incurred in hiring a tradesperson to install new doors, including hinges and handles. c. $908.00 for the purchase of two replacement Rimu doors. d. $100.00 for the landlord’s time and labour.
The total amount of these figures is $2,124.13. Walls Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the walls in bedrooms 1, 3 and downstairs were damaged during the tenancy. The tenant attempted patch repairs, which the landlord claims were not adequate.
The landlord seeks compensation of $1,069.98 to paint the walls.
The tenant accepts that the walls in bedrooms 1 and 3 were damaged during the tenancy and they tried to repair them but did not paint them. The tenant claims a flatmate lived downstairs and they do not have much knowledge about what occurred in this area of the house. The tenant also claims downstairs was in a poorer condition to the rest of the house. Further, the tenant claims the house needed to be painted in any case. Analysis
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show some general wear and tear to the walls. For example, there are scuff marks, scratches and peeled paint to the wall in bedroom 3. This suggests the walls and paint had some age to them at the beginning of the tenancy.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show patch repairs have been attempted to the walls in bedrooms 1, 3 and downstairs. On the balance of probabilities, I find these walls were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability. The repairs to the walls have not been finished and are obvious. It was reasonable for the landlord to paint the walls in bedrooms 1, 3 and downstairs.
The landlord seeks compensation of $394.98 for the purchase of materials to complete the painting job. The landlord submitted receipts for this amount.
The landlord did the painting themselves and seeks a further $675.00 for their time and labour. The landlord claims it took them 9 hours to paint the walls and have charged themselves out at $75.00 per hour. The Tribunal sees numerous applications for compensation for painting. The average hourly rate is $35.00 - $55.00 per hour. The landlord cannot complete work themselves to try to minimise their loss and then seek to recover an amount from the tenant equivalent to, or more than, the likely cost a professional would have charged.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for their time and labour is granted for a nominal amount of $200.00.
To summarise, the landlord’s claim to paint the walls is granted for a total of $594.98. Carpet Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the carpet in bedroom 1 and downstairs was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord claims they tried to clean it professionally, but this did not work. Therefore, they had it repaired.
The tenant accepts that the carpet in bedroom 1 was damaged during the tenancy when a lamp was knocked over and caught the carpet on fire. The tenant claims a flatmate lived downstairs and they do not know much about what occurred in this area of the house. The tenant claims the carpet was damp and smelt bad. Analysis
The photographs of the carpet taken at the beginning of the tenancy show no or minimal marks in bedroom 1 and downstairs. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the carpet has multiple marks and stains. On the balance of probabilities, I find the carpet in bedroom 1 and downstairs was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant claims a lamp was knocked over in bedroom 1 and caught the carpet on fire. I consider this damage to be careless. The tenant does not know how the carpet was damaged downstairs however, they are responsible for the actions of their flatmate who lived downstairs and was in the premises with their permission.
It was reasonable for the landlord to have the carpet professionally cleaned in the first instance to try to mitigate their loss. If this worked, they would not have needed to repair or replace the carpet. Unfortunately, it did not.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $362.25 for carpet cleaning. Their claim for compensation is granted for this amount.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $747.50 to repair the carpet. The landlord seeks $551.00 of this invoice, which is granted in full. No evidence to support the tenant’s claim that the carpet was damp was submitted. In any case, because the carpet has not been replaced, I do not consider it necessary to make a reduction for betterment and depreciation. Curtains
The landlord submitted photographs of downstairs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. Relatively thin, white curtains or netting are present. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show these have been replaced by grey curtains, which have not been hung properly.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the curtains downstairs were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
The tenant is responsible for the actions of their flatmate who lived downstairs because they were in the premises with the tenant’s permission. The attempted repair and hanging of the grey curtains has not been completed property. It was reasonable for the landlord to purchase new curtains in these circumstances.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $114.00 for the purchase of new curtains, hooks and eyes from Spotlight. The replacement curtains are not expensive or of high quality and therefore, I do not consider it necessary to make a reduction for betterment and depreciation.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $114.00.
I decline to grant the landlord a further $75.00 for their time and labour in purchasing and hanging the curtains, because the rate is high and this was a relatively minor task. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5230952 — Property damage at 49 Tasman View Road, Bethells Beach, RD 1, Bethells

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5230952 — Property damage at 49 Tasman View Road, Bethells Beach, RD 1, Bethells

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions