Tenantcheck Insights
Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Decided 5 Feb 2026 · Published 5 Feb 2026 · Application 5232333
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
J Setefano
Dispute themes
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Decided 5 Feb 2026 · Published 5 Feb 2026 · Application 5232333
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
J Setefano
Dispute themes
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Insurance excess - fire damage | $5,000.00 | Insurance excess - fire damage | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $27.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $2,067.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $2,067.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5232333 — net $2,067.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Insurance excess - fire damage
Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $2,067.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $2,067.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Background The matter was heard by video conference on 2 July 2025. The landlords attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend. The Tribunal was satisfied that the tenant had been properly served with the hearing notice and proceeded in the tenant’s absence. This application concerns a claim by the landlords for compensation following a significant house fire that occurred at the tenancy premises on 2 April 2025. The landlords seek $5,000.00, being the amount of their insurance excess, as well as refund of the bond and reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee. The tenancy commenced on 31 July 2024 and ended on 2 April 2025. The weekly rent was $740.00 and the bond of $2,960.00 was lodged with the Bond Centre. The Landlords’ Claim The landlords claim that the tenant caused a fire which resulted in extensive damage to the property. The claim is based on the alleged actions of the tenant, who, contrary to the terms of the tenancy agreement, smoked a cigarette indoors in proximity to a 45kg LPG gas cylinder being stored in the living room. The landlords state the tenant had earlier reported the smell of gas, but despite this, proceeded to smoke in the same area. The landlords submitted several items of evidence including photographs and video footage of the fire damage, a police report, and documentation from the insurer. The police report confirms that the fire occurred in the living room, that the occupants smelled gas earlier in the day, and that the fire investigator deemed the circumstances “suspicious.” The insurer’s material confirmed a total loss scenario, subject to a $5,000.00 excess. The landlords’ position is that the fire was caused by the careless, if not reckless, conduct of the tenant and that this has triggered a liability to meet the insurance excess. Legal Framework Under section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), tenants must not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the premises. Tenants are also responsible for the acts of those they allow onto the property (section 41 RTA). Section 49B of the RTA governs the tenant’s liability for damage to the premises. A tenant is liable for intentional damage, or for damage resulting from any activity that constitutes an imprisonable offence. Section 49B(1) applies in such cases and the tenant is liable for the full cost of the damage.
Damage is considered intentional where a person does something, or knowingly allows a situation to continue, in circumstances where damage is a certainty. This includes conduct where there is a conscious disregard of a known risk. In Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541, the High Court confirmed that recklessness and gross negligence may amount to intentional damage under the RTA. Where the damage is not intentional but is the result of carelessness, and is covered by the landlord’s insurance, the tenant’s liability is limited to the lesser of the excess or four weeks’ rent under section 49B(3)(a). If the damage is excluded from cover due to the tenant’s conduct, or if cover is irrecoverable because of such conduct, then the damage is treated as if it is uninsured (section 49B(3A)) and full liability may result. Analysis The Tribunal is satisfied that the fire occurred during the tenancy and caused extensive damage to the premises. The photographic and video evidence, together with the insurer’s report, shows that the premises were rendered uninhabitable and will require a full rebuild. The police report confirms that the fire originated in the lounge and was related to the presence of a cigarette and gas. The fire was not an accident in the ordinary sense. The evidence indicates that the tenant was aware of the smell of gas earlier in the day, yet chose to smoke a cigarette indoors near a 45kg LPG cylinder—a highly volatile and dangerous combination. This is not consistent with the duty to take care of the premises. The tenant had been told that smoking inside the house was not permitted, and they also advised on their pre- tenancy application that they were non-smokers. The Tribunal finds this conduct to be more than carelessness. The act of lighting a cigarette indoors in the presence of a gas cylinder, after smelling gas, reflects a knowing disregard for the safety of the property and the certainty of risk. This falls within the category of intentional damage under section 49B(1) of the RTA. In the alternative, the damage would still be treated as uninsured under section 49B(3A), as the insurer would be entitled to deny liability in circumstances where the tenant’s conduct is grossly negligent or reckless. While the landlords have a valid insurance policy, they have incurred an excess of $5,000.00. This is an actual, measurable loss arising directly from the tenant’s conduct. The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant is liable for the $5,000.00 excess. The landlords’ evidence is sufficient to establish the cause and extent of the damage. The tenant did not attend the hearing and did not provide any alternative explanation or defence.
Filing fee and suppression order As the landlords are wholly successful with the claim, the Tribunal must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee and grant suppression of the landlords’ names and identifying details.
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
s40(2), s41, s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal
Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord
The primary dispute was Property damage.
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12090141-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Insurance excess - fire damage | $5,000.00 | Insurance excess - fire damage | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $27.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $2,067.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $2,067.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5232333 — net $2,067.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Insurance excess - fire damage
Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $2,067.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $2,067.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Background The matter was heard by video conference on 2 July 2025. The landlords attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend. The Tribunal was satisfied that the tenant had been properly served with the hearing notice and proceeded in the tenant’s absence. This application concerns a claim by the landlords for compensation following a significant house fire that occurred at the tenancy premises on 2 April 2025. The landlords seek $5,000.00, being the amount of their insurance excess, as well as refund of the bond and reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee. The tenancy commenced on 31 July 2024 and ended on 2 April 2025. The weekly rent was $740.00 and the bond of $2,960.00 was lodged with the Bond Centre. The Landlords’ Claim The landlords claim that the tenant caused a fire which resulted in extensive damage to the property. The claim is based on the alleged actions of the tenant, who, contrary to the terms of the tenancy agreement, smoked a cigarette indoors in proximity to a 45kg LPG gas cylinder being stored in the living room. The landlords state the tenant had earlier reported the smell of gas, but despite this, proceeded to smoke in the same area. The landlords submitted several items of evidence including photographs and video footage of the fire damage, a police report, and documentation from the insurer. The police report confirms that the fire occurred in the living room, that the occupants smelled gas earlier in the day, and that the fire investigator deemed the circumstances “suspicious.” The insurer’s material confirmed a total loss scenario, subject to a $5,000.00 excess. The landlords’ position is that the fire was caused by the careless, if not reckless, conduct of the tenant and that this has triggered a liability to meet the insurance excess. Legal Framework Under section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), tenants must not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the premises. Tenants are also responsible for the acts of those they allow onto the property (section 41 RTA). Section 49B of the RTA governs the tenant’s liability for damage to the premises. A tenant is liable for intentional damage, or for damage resulting from any activity that constitutes an imprisonable offence. Section 49B(1) applies in such cases and the tenant is liable for the full cost of the damage.
Damage is considered intentional where a person does something, or knowingly allows a situation to continue, in circumstances where damage is a certainty. This includes conduct where there is a conscious disregard of a known risk. In Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541, the High Court confirmed that recklessness and gross negligence may amount to intentional damage under the RTA. Where the damage is not intentional but is the result of carelessness, and is covered by the landlord’s insurance, the tenant’s liability is limited to the lesser of the excess or four weeks’ rent under section 49B(3)(a). If the damage is excluded from cover due to the tenant’s conduct, or if cover is irrecoverable because of such conduct, then the damage is treated as if it is uninsured (section 49B(3A)) and full liability may result. Analysis The Tribunal is satisfied that the fire occurred during the tenancy and caused extensive damage to the premises. The photographic and video evidence, together with the insurer’s report, shows that the premises were rendered uninhabitable and will require a full rebuild. The police report confirms that the fire originated in the lounge and was related to the presence of a cigarette and gas. The fire was not an accident in the ordinary sense. The evidence indicates that the tenant was aware of the smell of gas earlier in the day, yet chose to smoke a cigarette indoors near a 45kg LPG cylinder—a highly volatile and dangerous combination. This is not consistent with the duty to take care of the premises. The tenant had been told that smoking inside the house was not permitted, and they also advised on their pre- tenancy application that they were non-smokers. The Tribunal finds this conduct to be more than carelessness. The act of lighting a cigarette indoors in the presence of a gas cylinder, after smelling gas, reflects a knowing disregard for the safety of the property and the certainty of risk. This falls within the category of intentional damage under section 49B(1) of the RTA. In the alternative, the damage would still be treated as uninsured under section 49B(3A), as the insurer would be entitled to deny liability in circumstances where the tenant’s conduct is grossly negligent or reckless. While the landlords have a valid insurance policy, they have incurred an excess of $5,000.00. This is an actual, measurable loss arising directly from the tenant’s conduct. The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant is liable for the $5,000.00 excess. The landlords’ evidence is sufficient to establish the cause and extent of the damage. The tenant did not attend the hearing and did not provide any alternative explanation or defence.
Filing fee and suppression order As the landlords are wholly successful with the claim, the Tribunal must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee and grant suppression of the landlords’ names and identifying details.
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
s40(2), s41, s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal
Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord
The primary dispute was Property damage.
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12090141-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.
