What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5235952 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 5235952?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5235952?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5235952?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12008431-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5235952 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 5235952?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5235952?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5235952?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12008431-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5235952 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5235952 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5235952 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Realty Focus Limited As Agent For Regan Gee must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy ended on 5 April 2025. The landlord has withheld the bond from the tenant since that date for alleged careless or intentional damage to the ceilings and the bench top.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has not made a cross application seeking the $1,200.00 of compensation it seeks for the repainting of ceilings it says the tenant carelessly or intentionally damaged during the tenancy or for the $1,100.00 insurance excess for the repair/replacement of the bench top that the landlord says the tenant carelessly or intentionally damaged during the tenancy.

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 party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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.
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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.

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. In this matter, the landlord appears to have forgotten that the burden of proof is on it to prove the tenant is liable for damage, that the bond money belongs to the tenant and is held on trust by the Bond Centre and must be reimbursed to the tenant, unless the landlord has proven it has a legitimate claim over that bond for costs it has incurred as a result one or more proven breaches of the tenant’s responsibilities at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s attitude at today’s hearing reflects a view that the burden of proof is on the tenant to disprove liability. That evidential burden only falls on a tenant once the landlord has successfully met its evidential burden.
The landlord stated that it had tried to upload some evidence yesterday and had not been able to. I note that that the property management company is acting as an agent for the property owner and presumably being paid for that service. A property owner engages professional property managers as they are experienced in the RTA and the lawful management of residential tenancies. The Tribunal expects that experienced property managers know how to file evidence with the registry well before a scheduled hearing. The landlord has had the tenant’s application since 14 April 2025 and has been aware of this hearing since it received the notice of hearing on 9 May 2025. It has had ample time to enquire how to file its evidence, and to file the necessary evidence to meet its evidential burden for the damage claims it has made against the tenant’s bond by withholding it for 2 months.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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 says the tenant has carelessly or intentionally caused damage to the ceilings and the bench top during the tenancy, the damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant should compensate the landlord for the cost of that damage. Ceilings
The tenant produced photographs of the alleged damage to the ceiling which show smear like patterns on the paintwork. She also explained that she had washed the ceilings with heavily diluted sugar soap in a spray bottle and used a soft microfibre cloth, that was not abrasive, to remove fly excrement. Further, she states that she has done this type of cleaning before on walls and ceilings and has never damaged paint work.
The landlord says the tenant must have used an abrasive cloth and that she cannot be giving me truthful evidence about how she cleaned the ceilings, as she has damaged the paint on these ceilings to the point they have to be repainted.
The landlord also confirmed that the ceilings had not been painted in the last 6 years. I note that ceiling paint typically lasts for 5 to 10 years on average, but the exact lifespan can vary depending on several factors, including the type of paint, the quality of the original paint job, and the conditions of the room. Oil-based paints generally last longer (5-15 years) than latex or acrylic paints (2-10 years). The landlord did not confirm what type of paint was on the ceiling nor did it produce any evidence to support what it says the ceilings looked like at the start of the tenancy. It also failed to provide any evidence in its defence to show that the ceilings had been repainted after the end of the tenancy and that it had incurred $1,200.00 for that work. The landlord also confirmed it had not sent the tenant a copy of the invoice and appeared to think it did not have to do so to justify withholding the tenant’s bond. It confirmed it did orally tell the tenant she was liable for that cost.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant should be held liable for the $1,200.00 cost it has allegedly incurred to repaint the ceilings, nor that the damage was caused by a careless act or omission by the tenant, nor that she intentionally caused the damage to the ceilings. The paint is also 6 years old and could have been flaking/ or deteriorate over time and the deteriorating paint could have been removed when it was cleaned.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim against the tenant’s bond because the landlord has not produced sufficient evidence to prove its claim against the bond for the damage to the ceilings on the balance of probabilities. Further, the tenant has successfully disproven liability for this damage for the reasons set out above Bench top
The tenant has provided photographs of the three cracks on the bench top, where the bench meets the cook top and the sink area near the dishwasher and says that she did not cause those cracks by any careless acts or omissions by her or anyone in the house with her consent. She is not even sure if they were there at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant noted that cracks in a concrete benchtop, whether hairline or larger, can often be caused by stress, shrinkage, or temperature changes or could indicate structural issues requiring repair. She also noted that the hairline cracks showed no signs of chips that you might ordinarily see if something had been dropped on the bench top carelessly causing damage.
The landlord confirmed that bench top was approximately 5 years old and was made of a concrete like material. The landlord did to provide any before and after photographs to prove the cracks occurred during the tenancy or routine property inspection photographs that show when the cracks appeared and if this damage was raised with the tenant at the time they appeared.
The landlord also confirmed it had made an insurance claim for the bench tops and was seeking $1,100.00 to cover the two $550.00 insurance excesses it says it has paid to its insurer. The landlord did not produce any insurance assessor or claims information to the Tribunal that showed the claims had been made, whether they had been accepted and what money has been paid to the landlord. It stated it had also not sent any of this information to the tenant. Further, it could not explain why it considered the damage was caused by a careless act or omission by the tenant, or that she intentionally caused the damage. Again, the landlord appeared not to think it needed to send the tenant any information to justify withholding the tenant’s bond.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant should be held liable for the $1,100.00 insurance excess it has allegedly incurred to have the bench repaired/replaced, nor that the damage was caused by a careless act or omission by the tenant, nor that she intentionally caused the damage.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim against the tenant’s bond because the landlord has not produced sufficient evidence to prove its claim against the bond for the damage to the bench on the balance of probabilities. Further, the tenant has successfully disproven liability for this damage for the reasons set out above.
The full bond will be refunded to the tenant by order of the Tribunal. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has wholly succeeded in her proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5235952 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5235952 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions