What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5242371?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5242371?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5242371?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12214221-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5242371?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5242371?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5242371?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12214221-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9A Adams Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5242371 — Property damage

Order

The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a long tenancy; it began in 2017 and ended in March this year.
The only outstanding claim to be determined is whether the tenants are liable for the insurance excess ($750) to repair the garage door.
The landlord says that at the final inspection it noticed damage to two panels on the door. The landlord said that it was not told about the damage until the final inspection, and it had not been noticed before that date. The property was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy and the landlord wanted the garage door repaired. The cost of the repair was $1565.50. It was covered by the landlord’s insurance and the landlord wants the tenant to cover the cost of the excess.
The tenant accepts that a previous flatmate at the property caused the damage when a ladder on the back of his work vehicle collided with the garage door. The tenant says that this occurred in or about 2017 or 2018, right at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant says that the garage door has been dented for 7 years and it has worked absolutely fine and did not need replacement.
The tenant cannot recall if he drew the damage to his landlord’s attention at the time or if he had ever been asked about the damage before.
The property manager has been the same property manager from 2020, she cannot recall ever noticing the damage on the door and believes that it was never brought to her attention. The relevant 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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.
The provisions for tenant’s liability in respect of damage changed on the 27 August 2019 due to section 8 of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2019. The changes did not apply to damage that was done before the 27 August 2019.
In Holler and Rouse v Osaki [2016] NZCA 130, the Court of Appeal ruled that provisions in the Property Law Act 2007 which relate to commercial tenancies also apply to residential tenancies. As a consequence, tenants were not required to pay for the cost of repairing damage in a number of circumstances, including where the damage is caused by fire or is of a kind covered by the landlord's insurance. There are exceptions to this general rule. For example, if the damage is intentional, the tenant is required to pay the cost of repairs.
The High Court held that the principle in Osaki applies to any insurance excess, and where the amount claimed is less than the excess and the landlord does not make an insurance claim. See Linklater v Dickison and Others [2017] NZHC 2813. The tenant is also protected where the amount of insurance cover is limited to a fixed sum. It is the fact of insurance, not the extent of it, which provides the protection.
The changes pursuant to section 8 of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2019 changed the law so that principle in Osaki no longer applied to careless damage caused in residential tenancies after 27 August 2019, meaning that landlords could claim the cost of the insurance excess for claims for careless damage caused by their tenants. Analysis
There are two questions to be determined: a. Did the damage occur before the 27 August 2019? b. If not, is the cost of insurance excess more than the reasonable cost of repair?

Did the damage occur before the 27 August 2019?

The landlord provided me with a photograph from the outgoing inspection report in March 2025 and a photograph of the garage door from an inspection on 26 September 2019. The landlord says that the damage is not visible in the September 2019 photograph and therefore the tenant is mistaken that the damage occurred before that date.
The tenant says that the damage did occur before the 27 August 2019 and that if can be seen in the photograph taken at the inspection in September 2019 to the left of the shadowing in the photograph.
I have reviewed the photographs and I am satisfied that the dent can be seen in the September 2019 photograph. It is just to the left of the shadow and is on the 4 and 5 panel from the bottom. There is a slight discolouration (a blue tinge) around it in the crease on the 5 th panel from the bottom.
I am therefore satisfied that the damage occurred before the law changes in 2019 came into effect. Therefore the law as it was before 27 August 2019 is to be applied and the tenant is not liable for this damage.
The landlord’s claim for the garage door repair is dismissed.

Order

The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a long tenancy; it began in 2017 and ended in March this year.
The only outstanding claim to be determined is whether the tenants are liable for the insurance excess ($750) to repair the garage door.
The landlord says that at the final inspection it noticed damage to two panels on the door. The landlord said that it was not told about the damage until the final inspection, and it had not been noticed before that date. The property was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy and the landlord wanted the garage door repaired. The cost of the repair was $1565.50. It was covered by the landlord’s insurance and the landlord wants the tenant to cover the cost of the excess.
The tenant accepts that a previous flatmate at the property caused the damage when a ladder on the back of his work vehicle collided with the garage door. The tenant says that this occurred in or about 2017 or 2018, right at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant says that the garage door has been dented for 7 years and it has worked absolutely fine and did not need replacement.
The tenant cannot recall if he drew the damage to his landlord’s attention at the time or if he had ever been asked about the damage before.
The property manager has been the same property manager from 2020, she cannot recall ever noticing the damage on the door and believes that it was never brought to her attention. The relevant 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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.
The provisions for tenant’s liability in respect of damage changed on the 27 August 2019 due to section 8 of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2019. The changes did not apply to damage that was done before the 27 August 2019.
In Holler and Rouse v Osaki [2016] NZCA 130, the Court of Appeal ruled that provisions in the Property Law Act 2007 which relate to commercial tenancies also apply to residential tenancies. As a consequence, tenants were not required to pay for the cost of repairing damage in a number of circumstances, including where the damage is caused by fire or is of a kind covered by the landlord's insurance. There are exceptions to this general rule. For example, if the damage is intentional, the tenant is required to pay the cost of repairs.
The High Court held that the principle in Osaki applies to any insurance excess, and where the amount claimed is less than the excess and the landlord does not make an insurance claim. See Linklater v Dickison and Others [2017] NZHC 2813. The tenant is also protected where the amount of insurance cover is limited to a fixed sum. It is the fact of insurance, not the extent of it, which provides the protection.
The changes pursuant to section 8 of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2019 changed the law so that principle in Osaki no longer applied to careless damage caused in residential tenancies after 27 August 2019, meaning that landlords could claim the cost of the insurance excess for claims for careless damage caused by their tenants. Analysis
There are two questions to be determined: a. Did the damage occur before the 27 August 2019? b. If not, is the cost of insurance excess more than the reasonable cost of repair?

Did the damage occur before the 27 August 2019?

The landlord provided me with a photograph from the outgoing inspection report in March 2025 and a photograph of the garage door from an inspection on 26 September 2019. The landlord says that the damage is not visible in the September 2019 photograph and therefore the tenant is mistaken that the damage occurred before that date.
The tenant says that the damage did occur before the 27 August 2019 and that if can be seen in the photograph taken at the inspection in September 2019 to the left of the shadowing in the photograph.
I have reviewed the photographs and I am satisfied that the dent can be seen in the September 2019 photograph. It is just to the left of the shadow and is on the 4 and 5 panel from the bottom. There is a slight discolouration (a blue tinge) around it in the crease on the 5 th panel from the bottom.
I am therefore satisfied that the damage occurred before the law changes in 2019 came into effect. Therefore the law as it was before 27 August 2019 is to be applied and the tenant is not liable for this damage.
The landlord’s claim for the garage door repair is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5242371 — Property damage at 9A Adams Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5242371 — Property damage at 9A Adams Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the damage occur before the 27 August 2019?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the damage occur before the 27 August 2019?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions