What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5237351 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 5237351?

Glass: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cabinet Doors: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Door Frame: $903.44 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe Frame: $868.48 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtain: $99.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5237351?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5237351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12098443-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5237351 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 5237351?

Glass: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cabinet Doors: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Door Frame: $903.44 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe Frame: $868.48 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtain: $99.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5237351?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5237351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12098443-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5237351 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5237351 — net $680.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: kitchen door frame	$903.44	s reduced by $200. The tenant is ordered to pay $785.60 plus GST which comes to $903.44.
Repairs: kitchen cabinet doors	$100.00	Repairs: kitchen cabinet doors
Repairs: glass	$270.00	Repairs: glass
Replace furnishings: curtain	$99.00	Replace furnishings: curtain
Repairs: wardrobe frame	$868.48	Repairs: wardrobe frame
Net award	$680.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$680.92

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $630.92 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord represented by [the property manager].
The tenancy began on 29 March 2024. At that time the company managing the rental was [company A], who in the meantime have been acquired by [company B]. This meant that [the property manager] did not have direct knowledge of the property at the start of the tenancy and was relying on documentation provided by [company A]. This was in the form of photographs of the entry inspection, but no written commentary had been provided of the state of the property at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 3 March 2025.
The claims are for the following: a. Damaged kitchen door jamb b. Damaged wardrobe door jamb c. Missing curtains d. Missing kitchen cabinet doors e. Broken glass in front and back doors f. Damaged hallway wall
The onus of proof is on the landlord to establish their claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

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.
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 tenant accepted full responsibility for the following items: a. Damaged kitchen door jamb b. Damaged wardrobe door jamb c. Missing curtains
The parties agreed that the tenant was not responsible for a replacement door and handle in the kitchen and so the amount claimed was reduced by $200. The tenant is ordered to pay $785.60 plus GST which comes to $903.44.
The tenant accepted responsibility for the damaged wardrobe door jamb and agreed to pay $755.20 plus GST which comes to $868.48.
The lounge curtains had been removed. The parties agreed that they had been new at the start of the tenancy. They were replaced with curtains from The Warehouse totalling $99.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The tenant accepted partial responsibility for the following: a. Missing kitchen cabinet doors b. Broken glass in front and back doors
The kitchen cabinet doors were missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that they were always coming off. She pointed to a photo of the entry inspection showing a crack in one door. She said that they did not slide properly and that door then broke completely. She said that another door was taped at the back. The doors had been removed, but not left at the property.
The landlord claimed $1,331.20 for replacement kitchen cabinet doors.
It is evident from the photographs that the cabinet doors had not been custom made for the joinery. They did not cover all of the shelves and I accept the tenant’s evidence that they did not fit properly. If she had left the doors at the property, it is possible that no compensation for this item would have been ordered.
[The property manager] did not know how old the doors were, but in any event, I am satisfied that they were not fit for purpose. She confirmed that the new doors now fit the cabinets properly.
I have decided that the tenant should contribute $100.00 for replacement doors.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord sought $270.00 for replacement glass in the front and back doors. The tenant accepted responsibility for the missing pane in the back door. She did not know how the crack in one of the front door panes occurred.
The entry inspection photographs show the front door glass intact.
The landlord has established that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not proved that she did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. The amount ordered is proved.
The tenant did not accept responsibility for damage in the hallway. The landlord claimed $1,000 plus GST for re-gibbing, plastering and painting an area between two doors.
The exit inspection photograph shows an uneven surface. There are two small bulges that look like plaster, there also appears to be a square patch and there is indentation close to the door jamb. [The property manager] said that the wall was soft.
The tenant said that the wall was like this when she moved in. She said that there had been some issues with the plumbing during the tenancy and suggested that the softness of the wall was due to leaking. She pointed to some entry inspection photos which showed that the wall was uneven at the start of the tenancy.
The pre-inspection photographs are not as clear as the exit photos, but there is evidence of some buckling.
The tenant denies responsibility for damage to the wall. The landlord has not established on the balance of probabilities that the damage is because of the careless or intentional acts of the tenant or someone present with her consent. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
On the matters which the tenant disputed, she has largely been successful. She has agreed to other matters. I therefore order suppression of the names of both parties and make no order for the reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5237351 — net $680.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: kitchen door frame	$903.44	s reduced by $200. The tenant is ordered to pay $785.60 plus GST which comes to $903.44.
Repairs: kitchen cabinet doors	$100.00	Repairs: kitchen cabinet doors
Repairs: glass	$270.00	Repairs: glass
Replace furnishings: curtain	$99.00	Replace furnishings: curtain
Repairs: wardrobe frame	$868.48	Repairs: wardrobe frame
Net award	$680.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$680.92

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $630.92 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord represented by [the property manager].
The tenancy began on 29 March 2024. At that time the company managing the rental was [company A], who in the meantime have been acquired by [company B]. This meant that [the property manager] did not have direct knowledge of the property at the start of the tenancy and was relying on documentation provided by [company A]. This was in the form of photographs of the entry inspection, but no written commentary had been provided of the state of the property at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 3 March 2025.
The claims are for the following: a. Damaged kitchen door jamb b. Damaged wardrobe door jamb c. Missing curtains d. Missing kitchen cabinet doors e. Broken glass in front and back doors f. Damaged hallway wall
The onus of proof is on the landlord to establish their claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

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.
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 tenant accepted full responsibility for the following items: a. Damaged kitchen door jamb b. Damaged wardrobe door jamb c. Missing curtains
The parties agreed that the tenant was not responsible for a replacement door and handle in the kitchen and so the amount claimed was reduced by $200. The tenant is ordered to pay $785.60 plus GST which comes to $903.44.
The tenant accepted responsibility for the damaged wardrobe door jamb and agreed to pay $755.20 plus GST which comes to $868.48.
The lounge curtains had been removed. The parties agreed that they had been new at the start of the tenancy. They were replaced with curtains from The Warehouse totalling $99.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The tenant accepted partial responsibility for the following: a. Missing kitchen cabinet doors b. Broken glass in front and back doors
The kitchen cabinet doors were missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that they were always coming off. She pointed to a photo of the entry inspection showing a crack in one door. She said that they did not slide properly and that door then broke completely. She said that another door was taped at the back. The doors had been removed, but not left at the property.
The landlord claimed $1,331.20 for replacement kitchen cabinet doors.
It is evident from the photographs that the cabinet doors had not been custom made for the joinery. They did not cover all of the shelves and I accept the tenant’s evidence that they did not fit properly. If she had left the doors at the property, it is possible that no compensation for this item would have been ordered.
[The property manager] did not know how old the doors were, but in any event, I am satisfied that they were not fit for purpose. She confirmed that the new doors now fit the cabinets properly.
I have decided that the tenant should contribute $100.00 for replacement doors.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord sought $270.00 for replacement glass in the front and back doors. The tenant accepted responsibility for the missing pane in the back door. She did not know how the crack in one of the front door panes occurred.
The entry inspection photographs show the front door glass intact.
The landlord has established that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not proved that she did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. The amount ordered is proved.
The tenant did not accept responsibility for damage in the hallway. The landlord claimed $1,000 plus GST for re-gibbing, plastering and painting an area between two doors.
The exit inspection photograph shows an uneven surface. There are two small bulges that look like plaster, there also appears to be a square patch and there is indentation close to the door jamb. [The property manager] said that the wall was soft.
The tenant said that the wall was like this when she moved in. She said that there had been some issues with the plumbing during the tenancy and suggested that the softness of the wall was due to leaking. She pointed to some entry inspection photos which showed that the wall was uneven at the start of the tenancy.
The pre-inspection photographs are not as clear as the exit photos, but there is evidence of some buckling.
The tenant denies responsibility for damage to the wall. The landlord has not established on the balance of probabilities that the damage is because of the careless or intentional acts of the tenant or someone present with her consent. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
On the matters which the tenant disputed, she has largely been successful. She has agreed to other matters. I therefore order suppression of the names of both parties and make no order for the reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5237351 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5237351 — 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