What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5231851 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Mark

How much money was awarded in case 5231851?

Compensation: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; - Kitchen Kickboard: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $408.25 awarded to landlord; -Dishwasher: $12.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5231851?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5231851?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12205633-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5231851 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Mark

How much money was awarded in case 5231851?

Compensation: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; - Kitchen Kickboard: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $408.25 awarded to landlord; -Dishwasher: $12.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5231851?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5231851?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12205633-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21B Columba Place, Matua, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5231851 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5231851 — net $901.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: - garden waste	$200.00	Rubbish removal: - garden waste
Repairs: - kitchen kickboard	$172.50	Repairs: - kitchen kickboard
Repairs: - wall damage	$408.25	Repairs: - wall damage
Repairs: -dishwasher	$12.50	Repairs: -dishwasher
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation - kitchen benchtop - by consent	$450.00	Compensation - kitchen benchtop - by consent
Net award	$901.05
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$901.05

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Mark Beesley & Deirdre Roy $901.05 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $369.20 (3033571-002) to Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Mark Beesley & Deirdre Roy immediately.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord’s property manager appeared for the landlord.
The hearing had previously been adjourned.
At the end of the hearing the tenant indicated she will file a counterclaim. She is free to do that as she sees fit. The tenant also said she did not know that the hearing today was in respect of a tenancy tribunal matter, but it was clear that she had notice of the hearing (which states the claims), the previous Tribunal order of 27 June 2025 in which clear directions were made for the filing of any additional evidence before this hearing.
The tenant also confirmed her email address at the hearing and confirmed that she had received a copy of the application and relevant documentation.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A previous Tribunal order resolved the landlords claims in respect of rent arrears, water rates and disposal of goods. That order is not incorporated into this order as this is not required for enforcement purposes.
The claim for removal costs in respect of fruit trees remaining at the property was not pursued at the hearing as the new owners of the property have retained the trees. This claim is dismissed.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 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. 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 (including the land) reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 1

GARDEN RUBBISH DISPOSAL

The landlord claims $200 in respect of removal of outdoor vegetation including compostable waste, rotten plant containers, broken pots and plants that were left at the end of the tenancy. An invoice and post-tenancy photographs were provided in support of the claim.
The tenant accepted leaving approximately 4 to 5 plants in pots, including a strawberry plant, at the end of the tenancy. The tenant disputed that it should cost $200 to remove the garden waste. She estimated it would take approximately an hour of time to remove the plants.
In taking into account the amount of garden waste that needed to be removed I find $200 is reasonable and make an order for the full amount claimed.
The amount claimed is proved.

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

It is a breach of the RTA if a tenant intentionally or carelessly causes damage or permits any other person to damage the premises. 2 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 3
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 4 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 2 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 3 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). 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 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 7
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. 8
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. 9
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

DAMAGED BENCH TOP

The tenant accepted liability for the $450 insurance excess in respect of the kitchen benchtop. I therefore make an order in respect of this claim by consent. 4 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 5 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 6 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 7 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(1) RTA. 9 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

REPAIRS TO THE KICKBOARD

The landlord claims $172.50 for a damaged kickboard in the kitchen.
The landlord provided an invoice in support of the claim and pre-tenancy and post tenancy photographs in support of the claim.
The landlord was unsure how the damage has occurred.
The tenant did not dispute causing damage to the kickboard but disputed that it was caused from rodents within the premises. The tenant suggested that the damage was caused from moisture damage from the kitchen bench leaking from the bench and effectively flowing to the kickboard.
The tenant accepted liability for the damage to the kickboard but says it was related to the damaged kitchen bench and should have been included in the replacement of the kitchen bench as part of the insurance excess of $450.
The landlord disputed that the damage was caused by any moisture or leak around the damaged area.
I accept that the damage may not have been caused by rodents however the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant did not otherwise disprove liability.
The landlord says that the damage is separate to the kitchen bench damage and if a further claim could be made in respect of the kickboard a further insurance excess would have been incurred which would’ve exceeded the amount paid for the repair.
I find that the damage to the kickboard does not appear to be related to the damage to the kitchen bench.
Because the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability, I make an order for the full amount claimed for the kickboard repair.
The landlord said the kitchen was approximately nine years old. The amount claimed is to repair only one area of the bench (as opposed to being for a new bench) therefore there is no deduction made for betterment and depreciation.

WALL REPAIR INVOICE

The landlord claimed $408.25 in respect of a wall repair.
Pre-tenancy and post-tenancy photographs were provided in support of the claim, as was an invoice.
It appears that during the tenancy something was sprayed onto the wall, for example an oil or cleaning product, which has left permanent damage. The amount claimed was to repair the one wall in the hallway.
Both the tenant and the property manager were required to undertake the promise to tell the truth.
The tenant disputed liability for the damage to the wall. The tenant suggested that the property manager caused the damage.
The property manager said that she did not cause the damage. I consider it unlikely a professional property manager would intentionally cause damage to a client’s home, given the consequences that might arise if a property manager did so.
The damage is more than fear wear and tear. I consider the damage has more likely been caused by the tenant or somebody permitted in the premises carelessly spraying something on the wall.
The tenant has not disproved liability.
The claim is proved by the pre-tenancy and post-tenancy photographs.
Accordingly, I make an order for the full amount claimed, for which there is no deduction for betterment and depreciation as the amount claimed is for the repair only.

DISHWASHER INVOICE

The landlord claimed $12.50 being the balance remaining for an invoice of $195.50 for which $183 has already been paid for by the tenant during the tenancy.
The landlord says the tenant blocked the dishwasher during the tenancy with allowing plastic to enter the dishwasher and damage the motor. The invoice from the repairer notes that plastic was in the motor. I have no information about what the source of the plastic was.
The tenant denied liability and said she would not have used plastic.
It appears the dishwasher was working for the first two years of the tenancy and the dishwasher became blocked in early March 2024. The repair was undertaken shortly thereafter.
Given the two-year period between the commencement of the tenancy and the damage being caused I consider it more like likely than not that the tenant has allowed plastic to enter the dishwasher causing the blockage.
I consider the tenant is liable for the repair cost and make an order for the amount of $12.50.
The amount ordered is proven.

CYPRESS TREES

The landlord claims $600 based on quotes provided for Cypress trees the landlord says the tenant removed from the property during the tenancy.
The tenant said that she did not remove the Cypress trees and the landlord actually removed the trees during the tenancy.
The landlord owner did not attend the hearing to refute this evidence and the property manager was not able to refute it.
I consider the tenant has disproved liability for the removal of the trees.
Because the landlord has not proven the claim in respect of the Cypress trees the claim is dismissed.
However, I also note that the landlord has not replaced the Cypress trees and has sold the property. The property manager indicated at the hearing that where the Cypress trees were removed the landlord planted new plants to assist with the sale of the property which cost approximately $20. Therefore, if I am wrong in my finding that the tenant did not damage the Cypress trees, I consider the landlord has not proved the claim in respect of quantum of compensation.

BOND

The balance of the bond is to be paid to the landlord to off-set the amount ordered.

FILING FEE

Because the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.

SUPPRESSION

The landlord did not seek name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the RTA says the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of a party not be published.
The tenant sought name suppression. Because the tenant has been unsuccessful in defending a substantial amount of the landlord’s claim, the public interest in open justice outweighs the tenant’s interests in name suppression. Name suppression is therefore declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5231851 — net $901.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: - garden waste	$200.00	Rubbish removal: - garden waste
Repairs: - kitchen kickboard	$172.50	Repairs: - kitchen kickboard
Repairs: - wall damage	$408.25	Repairs: - wall damage
Repairs: -dishwasher	$12.50	Repairs: -dishwasher
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation - kitchen benchtop - by consent	$450.00	Compensation - kitchen benchtop - by consent
Net award	$901.05
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$901.05

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Mark Beesley & Deirdre Roy $901.05 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $369.20 (3033571-002) to Eves Realty Limited As Agent For Mark Beesley & Deirdre Roy immediately.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord’s property manager appeared for the landlord.
The hearing had previously been adjourned.
At the end of the hearing the tenant indicated she will file a counterclaim. She is free to do that as she sees fit. The tenant also said she did not know that the hearing today was in respect of a tenancy tribunal matter, but it was clear that she had notice of the hearing (which states the claims), the previous Tribunal order of 27 June 2025 in which clear directions were made for the filing of any additional evidence before this hearing.
The tenant also confirmed her email address at the hearing and confirmed that she had received a copy of the application and relevant documentation.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A previous Tribunal order resolved the landlords claims in respect of rent arrears, water rates and disposal of goods. That order is not incorporated into this order as this is not required for enforcement purposes.
The claim for removal costs in respect of fruit trees remaining at the property was not pursued at the hearing as the new owners of the property have retained the trees. This claim is dismissed.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 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. 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 (including the land) reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 1

GARDEN RUBBISH DISPOSAL

The landlord claims $200 in respect of removal of outdoor vegetation including compostable waste, rotten plant containers, broken pots and plants that were left at the end of the tenancy. An invoice and post-tenancy photographs were provided in support of the claim.
The tenant accepted leaving approximately 4 to 5 plants in pots, including a strawberry plant, at the end of the tenancy. The tenant disputed that it should cost $200 to remove the garden waste. She estimated it would take approximately an hour of time to remove the plants.
In taking into account the amount of garden waste that needed to be removed I find $200 is reasonable and make an order for the full amount claimed.
The amount claimed is proved.

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

It is a breach of the RTA if a tenant intentionally or carelessly causes damage or permits any other person to damage the premises. 2 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 3
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 4 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 2 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 3 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). 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 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 7
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. 8
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. 9
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

DAMAGED BENCH TOP

The tenant accepted liability for the $450 insurance excess in respect of the kitchen benchtop. I therefore make an order in respect of this claim by consent. 4 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 5 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 6 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 7 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(1) RTA. 9 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

REPAIRS TO THE KICKBOARD

The landlord claims $172.50 for a damaged kickboard in the kitchen.
The landlord provided an invoice in support of the claim and pre-tenancy and post tenancy photographs in support of the claim.
The landlord was unsure how the damage has occurred.
The tenant did not dispute causing damage to the kickboard but disputed that it was caused from rodents within the premises. The tenant suggested that the damage was caused from moisture damage from the kitchen bench leaking from the bench and effectively flowing to the kickboard.
The tenant accepted liability for the damage to the kickboard but says it was related to the damaged kitchen bench and should have been included in the replacement of the kitchen bench as part of the insurance excess of $450.
The landlord disputed that the damage was caused by any moisture or leak around the damaged area.
I accept that the damage may not have been caused by rodents however the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant did not otherwise disprove liability.
The landlord says that the damage is separate to the kitchen bench damage and if a further claim could be made in respect of the kickboard a further insurance excess would have been incurred which would’ve exceeded the amount paid for the repair.
I find that the damage to the kickboard does not appear to be related to the damage to the kitchen bench.
Because the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability, I make an order for the full amount claimed for the kickboard repair.
The landlord said the kitchen was approximately nine years old. The amount claimed is to repair only one area of the bench (as opposed to being for a new bench) therefore there is no deduction made for betterment and depreciation.

WALL REPAIR INVOICE

The landlord claimed $408.25 in respect of a wall repair.
Pre-tenancy and post-tenancy photographs were provided in support of the claim, as was an invoice.
It appears that during the tenancy something was sprayed onto the wall, for example an oil or cleaning product, which has left permanent damage. The amount claimed was to repair the one wall in the hallway.
Both the tenant and the property manager were required to undertake the promise to tell the truth.
The tenant disputed liability for the damage to the wall. The tenant suggested that the property manager caused the damage.
The property manager said that she did not cause the damage. I consider it unlikely a professional property manager would intentionally cause damage to a client’s home, given the consequences that might arise if a property manager did so.
The damage is more than fear wear and tear. I consider the damage has more likely been caused by the tenant or somebody permitted in the premises carelessly spraying something on the wall.
The tenant has not disproved liability.
The claim is proved by the pre-tenancy and post-tenancy photographs.
Accordingly, I make an order for the full amount claimed, for which there is no deduction for betterment and depreciation as the amount claimed is for the repair only.

DISHWASHER INVOICE

The landlord claimed $12.50 being the balance remaining for an invoice of $195.50 for which $183 has already been paid for by the tenant during the tenancy.
The landlord says the tenant blocked the dishwasher during the tenancy with allowing plastic to enter the dishwasher and damage the motor. The invoice from the repairer notes that plastic was in the motor. I have no information about what the source of the plastic was.
The tenant denied liability and said she would not have used plastic.
It appears the dishwasher was working for the first two years of the tenancy and the dishwasher became blocked in early March 2024. The repair was undertaken shortly thereafter.
Given the two-year period between the commencement of the tenancy and the damage being caused I consider it more like likely than not that the tenant has allowed plastic to enter the dishwasher causing the blockage.
I consider the tenant is liable for the repair cost and make an order for the amount of $12.50.
The amount ordered is proven.

CYPRESS TREES

The landlord claims $600 based on quotes provided for Cypress trees the landlord says the tenant removed from the property during the tenancy.
The tenant said that she did not remove the Cypress trees and the landlord actually removed the trees during the tenancy.
The landlord owner did not attend the hearing to refute this evidence and the property manager was not able to refute it.
I consider the tenant has disproved liability for the removal of the trees.
Because the landlord has not proven the claim in respect of the Cypress trees the claim is dismissed.
However, I also note that the landlord has not replaced the Cypress trees and has sold the property. The property manager indicated at the hearing that where the Cypress trees were removed the landlord planted new plants to assist with the sale of the property which cost approximately $20. Therefore, if I am wrong in my finding that the tenant did not damage the Cypress trees, I consider the landlord has not proved the claim in respect of quantum of compensation.

BOND

The balance of the bond is to be paid to the landlord to off-set the amount ordered.

FILING FEE

Because the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.

SUPPRESSION

The landlord did not seek name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the RTA says the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of a party not be published.
The tenant sought name suppression. Because the tenant has been unsuccessful in defending a substantial amount of the landlord’s claim, the public interest in open justice outweighs the tenant’s interests in name suppression. Name suppression is therefore declined.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANCY?

GARDEN RUBBISH DISPOSAL

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

DAMAGED BENCH TOP

REPAIRS TO THE KICKBOARD

WALL REPAIR INVOICE

DISHWASHER INVOICE

CYPRESS TREES

BOND

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANCY?

GARDEN RUBBISH DISPOSAL

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

DAMAGED BENCH TOP

REPAIRS TO THE KICKBOARD

WALL REPAIR INVOICE

DISHWASHER INVOICE

CYPRESS TREES

BOND

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions