What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245375 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 5245375?

Rent Arrears: $680.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $101.34 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $17.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245375?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245375?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12265743-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245375 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 5245375?

Rent Arrears: $680.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $101.34 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $17.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245375?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245375?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12265743-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5245375 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245375 — net $798.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 April 2025	$680.00	Rent arrears to 11 April 2025
Water rates: As on invoice March 2025	$101.34	Water rates: As on invoice March 2025
Water rates: From invoice to end of tenancy	$17.14	Water rates: From invoice to end of tenancy
Net award	$798.48
Bond	$2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$798.48

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245375 — net $798.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 April 2025	$680.00	Rent arrears to 11 April 2025
Water rates: As on invoice March 2025	$101.34	Water rates: As on invoice March 2025
Water rates: From invoice to end of tenancy	$17.14	Water rates: From invoice to end of tenancy
Net award	$798.48
Bond	$2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$798.48

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants name and identifying details.
The landlord claims as set out in the flooring and builder’s quote are dismissed.
[The tenant/s] to pay Yu Shan Suzanne Law $798.48 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Yu Shan Suzanne Law: $798.48 [The tenant/s] $1,841.52

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by telephone.
The landlord’s agent is Mr Law and he attended on the landlord’s behalf. He says he managed the tenancy throughout.
Mr Law asked to remove the name of the property management business that he had put on the application. He says he only manages this property in a personal capacity rather than as part of this property business. The named landlord has therefore been amended to remove the business Mr Law works for.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outstanding water rates compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Before I discuss each claim, it is important to note that in the Tenancy Tribunal, applicants are generally required to establish the case to the civil standard of “balance of probabilities”. This means that they must establish that the situation is more likely than not to be as they argue or allege. I also note that whilst I may not have referred explicitly to all the evidence presented in this matter, it has been considered in the forming of this decision.
Ultimately, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
I appreciate the parties taking the time to sufficiently identify the photographs and present their positions today. This is important because as noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: like 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.

How much is owed for rent and water?

The tenancy was due to end after the landlord issued a notice to terminate the tenancy and take possession of the premises. I heard that this notice was due to end the tenancy on 11 April 2025.
The tenants say that while this is the case the landlord said that they could move out sooner if they wanted and the landlord did not dispute this.
The tenants say they moved out on 5 April 2025 but the landlord says they moved out later because some of the tenants’ things continued to remain at the property until 12 April 2025 (or 13 April, as different dates were given at the hearing, but nothing turns on this) when the final inspection was done and he got the keys back as well.
I have an email from the tenant dated 7 April 2025 telling the agent of the landlord that they had vacated the house on Saturday (being 5 April 2025). However, this email also says that the tenants will remove their remaining things from the garage and clear the boxes. The key as not returned at this time.
Given the message in the email that the tenants still had items remaining and would be returning for them, combined with the fact they did not return the keys at this point I am satisfied that possession was not returned to the landlord at this point or any earlier than 11 April 2025.
I therefore award rent to this date.
The landlord provided a rent record for the whole of the tenancy and once a discrepancy was noted and an adjustment made (concerning lines 157-172 of the rent statement which incorrectly set out that the rent and corresponding sums received were $660 instead of $680, due to a cut and paste error) I am satisfied it proves the amount owing to 11 April 2025.
The tenants agreed they had not paid the last water bill of $101.34. I am satisfied the landlord has only charged for use rather than any fixed charge. This sum is proven.
The landlord also did a final water reading and I am satisfied that the final charge for the last few days of the tenancy (between the above final invoice and the end of the tenancy) is $17.14. This sum is proven.

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.
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.
Further, and importantly, everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. If an item has to be replaced earlier because of tenant damage, and is replaced with a newer or better item, then the compensation needs to be adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be in a better position after a claim in the Tribunal, than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred. The Tribunal often considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Also particularly noteworthy here is that the Tribunal rarely accepts claims for damage compensation where the landlord has only provided quotes. The onus is on the landlord to show actual loss, and this is usually achieved by the filing of tax invoices and expense receipts.
The landlord’s claim was expressed as follows: a. Quotation for floor damage - $4,197.50 b. Quotation from builder - $2,265
I will deal with each of these in turn. Quotation for the floor
The landlord says that the wooden floor was damaged in 3 bedrooms, the hallway and lounge/dining room.
The evidence showing the damage was very limited. The landlord supplied limited photographs at the end of the tenancy showing the floor in a bedroom, a small bedroom and lounge/dining. The tenant also supplied several photographs. The landlord’s photographs show scratching in the lounge/dining and a large single scratch in one of the bedrooms. On the other hand, the tenants’ photographs do not show such scratching.
The landlord says that the property was renovated before this tenancy and provides a note from a flooring business that notes that the flooring had been sanded and coated by them in March 2021 (this tenancy began May 2021). Their opinion is that the damage is negligent.
The tenants say that the damage is nothing more than fair wear and tear – It was just caused by them living at the property.
Ultimately, I do not have to decide whether this is more than fair wear and tear because even if the landlord established that the tenant was liable for the damage, I consider that the landlord is unable to prove loss.
This is because the landlord only provided a quote and told me that the property has been re-tenanted and the work is still not done despite the tenants vacating in April and it now being August. I cannot be satisfied how much the work will actually cost or if and when and what work will be done.
An applicant must show actual loss in respect of a claim. Providing only a quote in support of a claim for damage compensation is not inadequate in this situation.
This is sufficient to dismiss the claim.
Although I do not need to go any further, I also make the following general observations: a. The quote relates to three bedrooms, a hallway and lounge/dining. The landlord’s evidence did not extend to all of these areas and I consider that the landlord did not sufficiently prove damage in all of these areas. I make no such finding but, if I had considered that some of the areas that were evidenced as being damaged amounted to more than fair wear and tear, I cannot guess how much of the larger quote relates to remedying just those specific rooms. b. Even if I had considered some of the damage amounted to careless damage, the insurance position is presently unknown and therefore I would not have known how much to award in respect of any excess payable. Builder’s quote
The landlord seeks $2,655 based on a builder’s quote for various work. It sets out: Bathroom Ceiling & Wall (sanded & painted) Toilet Roll Holders (install) & paint wall Clean marks throughout entire house Paint bedroom door off lounge Replace bathroom heat and fan light bolts Replace LED lights (1 x bedroom, 1 x lounge) Remove scratch from lounge floor
One difficulty for the landlord here again is also that no invoice was provided despite the landlord saying the work had been done.
This is sufficient to dismiss the claim because, as with the floor above, the loss is not established.
The claim is dismissed.
However, I also observe the claim would not have been successful in any event because: a. The quote is for a single sum for a number of different types of work – there is no breakdown of the overall sum and how much work is charged per task. b. Some of the work listed on the quote was not done at all – The claim for the bathroom heat bulb was remedied by the tenant (so did not need going) and I heard how the builder did not actually end up cleaning the walls as quoted at all, but just proceeding to repaint them (with there being no claim for this work). c. There was no probative evidence to support a claim for damage to the bathroom ceiling – the landlord could not therefore prove any damage. d. The landlord tried to claim, in part of the hearing, damage to the bathroom wall as listed on the quote – it later transpired there was none and this was not part of the claim despite it being on the quote. e. There was insufficient evidence to prove the damage by the toilet roll was anything other than fair wear and tear or even that it was caused by the tenant. It simply looks like paint has lifted and I accept that toilet roll holders can readily come loose over time as they are frequently handled. f. I am satisfied that the tenant adequately patched the wall behind the door at the end of the tenancy. While it was not painted, painting would be required in that room anyway (to fix the lifted paint by the toilet roll holder). g. The landlord wanted the tenant to replace LED bulbs – that meant an entire LED fitting not just the bulb. The landlord explained the tenant just needed to remove the wiring. Given the explanations given, I consider these to be specialist bulbs and part of the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises rather than a tenant responsibility. h. The builders quote sets out that it includes the repair of scratches to the lounge floor, but that is a duplicate of part of the above claim. There is no way I can tell how much of the quote needs to be discounted to account for that damage already claimed for above. i. The marks evidenced to me on the bedroom door I consider to be fair wear and tear in a tenancy that started in 2021 and ended in 2025. j. The walls that the landlord said needed cleaning were not in fact cleaned at all by the builder as set out on the quote so this work was not in fact done at all (there is no painting claim for these areas). In any event, I consider the marks to be fair wear and tear in a tenancy of this length and a tenant does not have to rigorously clan all walls and ceilings to return a property in a reasonable condition. Suppression and filing fee
The landlord has not been substantially successful and therefore I decline to award the filing fee.
The tenant seeks suppression of their identifying details and I consider that they are the substantially successful party in this case given the sums the landlord initially sought and how much the landlord actually recovered. I therefore supress the tenants identifying details (section 95A, RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245375 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245375 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water?

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

How much is owed for rent and water?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions