What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5250281 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 5250281?

Overpayment Credit As At 31 January…: $844.75 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5250281?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5250281?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12037983-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5250281 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 5250281?

Overpayment Credit As At 31 January…: $844.75 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5250281?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5250281?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12037983-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5250281 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5250281 — net $744.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs - Wall	$100.00		Repairs - Wall
Overpayment credit as at 31 January 2025 held by		$844.75	Overpayment credit as at 31 January 2025 held by
Total award	$100.00	$844.75
Net award		$744.75
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$744.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for additional rent, the garage door and gate are dismissed.
Mills Gibbon & Co Ltd T/A First National Collective As Agent For Gail Headley must pay [The tenant/s] $744.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Tenant 1] did not attend but his wife attended with her sister who is the other tenant. The tenants at times appeared to have difficulties following the proceedings due to hearing issues. I asked about this. I told them if they wanted more clarification they were to let me know. They were willing to proceed and all of the parties wanted the matters relating to the tenancy completed at the hearing rather than return.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenants gave notice and ultimately everyone agrees that they left the property on 31 January 2025. The landlord got possession on that day.
The landlord seeks rent arrears expressed to be for the delay in renting the property due to cleaning and gardening work that needed to be done and the power needing to be reconnected. While expressed as a claim for arrears this is in fact a claim for compensation because the landlord is seeking to be compensated for the rent that they missed out on while they say they tidied up the property.
The landlord said that the tenants were in credit by $844.75 as at the end of the tenancy on 31 January 2025 - but that it took until 22 February 2025 to undertake cleaning and to 4 March 2025 to complete generally tidying up. The landlord seeks the rent to 4 March 2025.
Landlords can expect for there to be time when properties are not rented out between tenancies. This tenancy was almost five years long and so a landlord can usually reasonably expect to have to undertake work at the end of the tenancy.
Here there was insufficient evidence to support a claim for compensation for rent beyond the end of the tenancy – there was insufficient evidence to show that the tenant was in breach of their obligations thereby causing such a loss which the landlord suitably mitigated.
It is noted here that the landlord is claiming over a month of compensation for delay to re-renting due to cleaning and gardening and power reconnection. That would be an extreme claim in most situations. A landlord has a duty to mitigate their loss – If a person suffers a legal wrong, they are not entitled to sit back, let damage accrue and then recover all the damage in money from the other party. Mitigation requires a claiming party to take steps to minimise its loss and to avoid taking unreasonable steps that increase its loss. Waiting so long to clean or undertake gardening work is unlikely to be reasonable.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Credit
The credit held by the landlord as a result of overpaid rent as at 31 January 2025 is $844.75 – this is refunded to the tenants subject to a deduction for the single successful claim below.

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.
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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are considered. Garage door
A garage door was damaged during the course of the tenancy. The door is dented. The tenants say it was damaged by intruders or prowlers who kicked at it. They say they do not know if it was an adult or a teenager but that they had other things broken by prowlers too which they fixed. They say during the tenancy they had problems with such people.
No insurance report was available to me despite the claim being accepted by the insurer.
I have no reason to doubt what the tenants say. The tenants were very straightforward in their presentation of the facts. The damage certainly looks as if it could have been caused by someone kicking it or trying to pry it open.
Tenant liability attaches to damage they have done or if it has been done by a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible. I accept that the damage was done by someone outside of the tenants’ control. Therefore, I find the tenants are not liable for this damage.
In any event, even if I am wrong here the landlord has no evidence about the intended repair strategy for the door and its cost. There are no quotes available, and I cannot guess the repair cost or the strategy or assume that the landlord will fix it.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Gate
At the beginning of the tenancy there was a gate and screening on what appears to be a carport type structure. The screening and gate panelling looks like it is made of a willow / bark sheeting – a landscape gardening type material. By the end of the tenancy that no longer existed, and plywood was put in place of the screening by the tenants. The original gate frame (wood) remains but plywood now fills the area rather than the screening.
This has been accepted by the landlord’s insurer. The landlord seeks the excess.
The tenants say that they replaced the screen after they came home one day to find the wire that held the screens together had been picked apart by intruders. They needed to put something up in its place because they stored garden things in that area.
This tenancy is around five years old. I find that had any of the original screening remained it would have likely been at the end of its useful lifespan in any event.
The maintenance that the tenant undertook is arguably better than what was in its place prior to the change.
While this has been accepted as an insurance claim there is no assessment, no quote or invoice and the work has not yet been done - I cannot guess the repair strategy or cost and I also am not satisfied that the landlord will actually undertake any work to alter what is now in place.
Therefore, I dismiss this claim. Laundry wall
The landlord says that the laundry wall was damaged so that a layer of the wall has come away. This has been accepted by the landlord’s insurer. The landlord seeks the excess.
The tenant says this damage was done when they were cleaning mould from the wall using a cleaning product. I find the tenant has not disproved liability for this damage.
There is no quote or invoice available for this work and there is no evidence the work has been done. However, I find given the nature of the damage, the landlord will at the least likely need to patch and repaint the area. The Tribunal deals with claims to patch and paint walls frequently. On the basis of the evidence before me I find an award in the sum of $100 to be reasonable. I have not depreciated this award as I have only allowed for a patch and paint – there has been no betterment. Filing fee and suppression
I decline to award the filing fee the landlord’s success has been minimal compared to the application made.
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 (s 95A, RTA).
The tenant has been substantially successful. They have defeated a large part of the claim and have received a monetary award in their favour. I award them name suppression.
I decline to award name suppression to the landlord. It has not been substantially successful.
I considered this carefully because the property manager did take a professional and pragmatic approach today while following her instructions from the landlord owner. However, ultimately the landlord did choose to bring an application that was not substantially successful and therefore I decline to award suppression to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5250281 — net $744.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs - Wall	$100.00		Repairs - Wall
Overpayment credit as at 31 January 2025 held by		$844.75	Overpayment credit as at 31 January 2025 held by
Total award	$100.00	$844.75
Net award		$744.75
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$744.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for additional rent, the garage door and gate are dismissed.
Mills Gibbon & Co Ltd T/A First National Collective As Agent For Gail Headley must pay [The tenant/s] $744.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Tenant 1] did not attend but his wife attended with her sister who is the other tenant. The tenants at times appeared to have difficulties following the proceedings due to hearing issues. I asked about this. I told them if they wanted more clarification they were to let me know. They were willing to proceed and all of the parties wanted the matters relating to the tenancy completed at the hearing rather than return.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenants gave notice and ultimately everyone agrees that they left the property on 31 January 2025. The landlord got possession on that day.
The landlord seeks rent arrears expressed to be for the delay in renting the property due to cleaning and gardening work that needed to be done and the power needing to be reconnected. While expressed as a claim for arrears this is in fact a claim for compensation because the landlord is seeking to be compensated for the rent that they missed out on while they say they tidied up the property.
The landlord said that the tenants were in credit by $844.75 as at the end of the tenancy on 31 January 2025 - but that it took until 22 February 2025 to undertake cleaning and to 4 March 2025 to complete generally tidying up. The landlord seeks the rent to 4 March 2025.
Landlords can expect for there to be time when properties are not rented out between tenancies. This tenancy was almost five years long and so a landlord can usually reasonably expect to have to undertake work at the end of the tenancy.
Here there was insufficient evidence to support a claim for compensation for rent beyond the end of the tenancy – there was insufficient evidence to show that the tenant was in breach of their obligations thereby causing such a loss which the landlord suitably mitigated.
It is noted here that the landlord is claiming over a month of compensation for delay to re-renting due to cleaning and gardening and power reconnection. That would be an extreme claim in most situations. A landlord has a duty to mitigate their loss – If a person suffers a legal wrong, they are not entitled to sit back, let damage accrue and then recover all the damage in money from the other party. Mitigation requires a claiming party to take steps to minimise its loss and to avoid taking unreasonable steps that increase its loss. Waiting so long to clean or undertake gardening work is unlikely to be reasonable.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Credit
The credit held by the landlord as a result of overpaid rent as at 31 January 2025 is $844.75 – this is refunded to the tenants subject to a deduction for the single successful claim below.

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.
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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are considered. Garage door
A garage door was damaged during the course of the tenancy. The door is dented. The tenants say it was damaged by intruders or prowlers who kicked at it. They say they do not know if it was an adult or a teenager but that they had other things broken by prowlers too which they fixed. They say during the tenancy they had problems with such people.
No insurance report was available to me despite the claim being accepted by the insurer.
I have no reason to doubt what the tenants say. The tenants were very straightforward in their presentation of the facts. The damage certainly looks as if it could have been caused by someone kicking it or trying to pry it open.
Tenant liability attaches to damage they have done or if it has been done by a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible. I accept that the damage was done by someone outside of the tenants’ control. Therefore, I find the tenants are not liable for this damage.
In any event, even if I am wrong here the landlord has no evidence about the intended repair strategy for the door and its cost. There are no quotes available, and I cannot guess the repair cost or the strategy or assume that the landlord will fix it.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Gate
At the beginning of the tenancy there was a gate and screening on what appears to be a carport type structure. The screening and gate panelling looks like it is made of a willow / bark sheeting – a landscape gardening type material. By the end of the tenancy that no longer existed, and plywood was put in place of the screening by the tenants. The original gate frame (wood) remains but plywood now fills the area rather than the screening.
This has been accepted by the landlord’s insurer. The landlord seeks the excess.
The tenants say that they replaced the screen after they came home one day to find the wire that held the screens together had been picked apart by intruders. They needed to put something up in its place because they stored garden things in that area.
This tenancy is around five years old. I find that had any of the original screening remained it would have likely been at the end of its useful lifespan in any event.
The maintenance that the tenant undertook is arguably better than what was in its place prior to the change.
While this has been accepted as an insurance claim there is no assessment, no quote or invoice and the work has not yet been done - I cannot guess the repair strategy or cost and I also am not satisfied that the landlord will actually undertake any work to alter what is now in place.
Therefore, I dismiss this claim. Laundry wall
The landlord says that the laundry wall was damaged so that a layer of the wall has come away. This has been accepted by the landlord’s insurer. The landlord seeks the excess.
The tenant says this damage was done when they were cleaning mould from the wall using a cleaning product. I find the tenant has not disproved liability for this damage.
There is no quote or invoice available for this work and there is no evidence the work has been done. However, I find given the nature of the damage, the landlord will at the least likely need to patch and repaint the area. The Tribunal deals with claims to patch and paint walls frequently. On the basis of the evidence before me I find an award in the sum of $100 to be reasonable. I have not depreciated this award as I have only allowed for a patch and paint – there has been no betterment. Filing fee and suppression
I decline to award the filing fee the landlord’s success has been minimal compared to the application made.
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 (s 95A, RTA).
The tenant has been substantially successful. They have defeated a large part of the claim and have received a monetary award in their favour. I award them name suppression.
I decline to award name suppression to the landlord. It has not been substantially successful.
I considered this carefully because the property manager did take a professional and pragmatic approach today while following her instructions from the landlord owner. However, ultimately the landlord did choose to bring an application that was not substantially successful and therefore I decline to award suppression to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5250281 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5250281 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions