What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5248291 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 5248291?

Carpet: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5248291?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12342069-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5248291 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 5248291?

Carpet: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5248291?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12342069-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5248291 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5248291 — net $667.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$300.00	Water rates
Repairs	$1,000.00	Repairs
Carpet	$600.00	Carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$667.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$667.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Nathalie Simone Gregory Green and Thomas Patrick Green must pay [The landlord/s] $667.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,260.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 29 August 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 18 October 2022. The tenancy ended on 21 April 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I wish to record that I found that both parties gave their evidence in an honest manner and both were prepared to concede where they felt that the evidence did not support their particular view of the facts.
I further record that this order was made after receiving and viewing the video provided by the tenant.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing by the tenant at the end of the tenancy was $622.36.
The landlord said that she had been advised by the tenant of a problem with the hot water system at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s evidence was that they accepted that there was an obligation on the tenant to advise the landlord of any required repairs. The tenant said that they had only discovered the issue with the water heater at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that the drain to the water heater was not easily a seen. They had never noticed previously notice that the water heater was leaking. They said that it was only discovered by them on the 17 April 2025 when they returned to the premises and found that the heater was leaking.
Previous water invoices received by the tenants during the course of the tenancy varied from $160.00 through to $276.00 for a six month period.
It is clear that some water was used by the tenant during the relevant period. I do not consider that the problem with the hot water system was caused by the tenant and they have brought it to the attention of the landlord at the first reasonable opportunity.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants. The Tribunal may consider the substantial merits and justice of the case. In all of the circumstances, I consider that an award of $300.00 in favour of the landlord for water rates is a fair and reasonable outcome. The tenant should not be disadvantaged as a result of issues that they have not caused and which they have brought to the attention of the landlord at the earliest possible time.

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. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries in excess of $1,000.00.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The landlord said that various areas of the house had required painting and repair at the end of the tenancy. In particular, the landlord referred to a bedroom where LED lighting strips had been placed in the corner of the room. It appeared that the tenants had removed these strips at the end of the tenancy and in doing so has caused some damage to the paint work.
The tenant accepted that this had occurred and went on to say that they had attempted to carry out repairs and painting themselves. Both parties provided photos of what they say were damaged areas. I do consider that the standard of paint and repair work by the tenant was not up to a professional standard. But, having reviewed the photos, I consider that the damage was not intentional. The damage is however more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
In setting the appropriate amount of compensation, 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. I have disregarded the landlords claim for compensation to repairs to the door, which I consider to have been simply fair wear and tear and to the hole in the garage, which I do not consider has been proven to be more likely than not to have occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord provided an invoice for $1,895.50 for the repairs. Taking into account the factors referred to above, I consider that a fair award of compensation to the landlord is $1,000.00
Fake vampire blood had had been accidentally spilt on the carpet in a bedroom by the tenant’s daughter at Halloween. The tenant accepted that they had not attempted to clean the carpet at that time.
The landlord’s evidence was that she had made enquiries with the providers of the original carpet. They had informed her that in their opinion that the carpet could not be cleaned. The landlord provided both photos of the damage and an invoice for the replacement of the carpet in that one bedroom. The invoice was $967.00. The carpet was five years old. The damage has been caused accidentally. The damage is however more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
In setting the appropriate amount of compensation, 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 item at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I order the tenant to pay compensation of $600.00.
As [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenants to reimburse the filing fee. Name Suppression
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter. Suppression of the landlords’ names and details is ordered. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenants’ application for name suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5248291 — net $667.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$300.00	Water rates
Repairs	$1,000.00	Repairs
Carpet	$600.00	Carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$667.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$667.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Nathalie Simone Gregory Green and Thomas Patrick Green must pay [The landlord/s] $667.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,260.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 29 August 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 18 October 2022. The tenancy ended on 21 April 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I wish to record that I found that both parties gave their evidence in an honest manner and both were prepared to concede where they felt that the evidence did not support their particular view of the facts.
I further record that this order was made after receiving and viewing the video provided by the tenant.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing by the tenant at the end of the tenancy was $622.36.
The landlord said that she had been advised by the tenant of a problem with the hot water system at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s evidence was that they accepted that there was an obligation on the tenant to advise the landlord of any required repairs. The tenant said that they had only discovered the issue with the water heater at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that the drain to the water heater was not easily a seen. They had never noticed previously notice that the water heater was leaking. They said that it was only discovered by them on the 17 April 2025 when they returned to the premises and found that the heater was leaking.
Previous water invoices received by the tenants during the course of the tenancy varied from $160.00 through to $276.00 for a six month period.
It is clear that some water was used by the tenant during the relevant period. I do not consider that the problem with the hot water system was caused by the tenant and they have brought it to the attention of the landlord at the first reasonable opportunity.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants. The Tribunal may consider the substantial merits and justice of the case. In all of the circumstances, I consider that an award of $300.00 in favour of the landlord for water rates is a fair and reasonable outcome. The tenant should not be disadvantaged as a result of issues that they have not caused and which they have brought to the attention of the landlord at the earliest possible time.

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. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries in excess of $1,000.00.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The landlord said that various areas of the house had required painting and repair at the end of the tenancy. In particular, the landlord referred to a bedroom where LED lighting strips had been placed in the corner of the room. It appeared that the tenants had removed these strips at the end of the tenancy and in doing so has caused some damage to the paint work.
The tenant accepted that this had occurred and went on to say that they had attempted to carry out repairs and painting themselves. Both parties provided photos of what they say were damaged areas. I do consider that the standard of paint and repair work by the tenant was not up to a professional standard. But, having reviewed the photos, I consider that the damage was not intentional. The damage is however more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
In setting the appropriate amount of compensation, 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. I have disregarded the landlords claim for compensation to repairs to the door, which I consider to have been simply fair wear and tear and to the hole in the garage, which I do not consider has been proven to be more likely than not to have occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord provided an invoice for $1,895.50 for the repairs. Taking into account the factors referred to above, I consider that a fair award of compensation to the landlord is $1,000.00
Fake vampire blood had had been accidentally spilt on the carpet in a bedroom by the tenant’s daughter at Halloween. The tenant accepted that they had not attempted to clean the carpet at that time.
The landlord’s evidence was that she had made enquiries with the providers of the original carpet. They had informed her that in their opinion that the carpet could not be cleaned. The landlord provided both photos of the damage and an invoice for the replacement of the carpet in that one bedroom. The invoice was $967.00. The carpet was five years old. The damage has been caused accidentally. The damage is however more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
In setting the appropriate amount of compensation, 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 item at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I order the tenant to pay compensation of $600.00.
As [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenants to reimburse the filing fee. Name Suppression
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter. Suppression of the landlords’ names and details is ordered. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenants’ application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5248291 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5248291 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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 water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions