What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5251860 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 5251860?

Carpet Assessment By Consent: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Painting By Consent: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet by conse…: $3,750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5251860?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5251860?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12275460-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5251860 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 5251860?

Carpet Assessment By Consent: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Painting By Consent: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet by conse…: $3,750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5251860?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5251860?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12275460-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5251860 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5251860 — net $4,711.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Carpet by consent	$3,750.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet by consent
Carpet assessment by consent	$184.00	Carpet assessment by consent
Painting by consent	$750.00	Painting by consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,711.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,711.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Jacob Adam Robertson $4,711.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant agreed to pay the Landlord the claims made for the carpet replacement, carpet assessment and painting.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Downpipe, boundary fence and damage to trees.
The Landlord submitted that the downpipe located adjacent to the front two bedroom windows was found to be detached from the top at the end of the tenancy. A photograph of the downpipe was provided. The Landlord also submitted an invoice from a plumber for the repair however, the invoice did not provide any explanation for the cause of the detachment. The ingoing inspection report did not record any damage to the downpipe at the commencement of the tenancy.
The Tenant submitted that she was unaware of any damage to the downpipe during the tenancy. She suggested the damage may have occurred during the two burglaries that took place at the property, possibly trying to gain access through the front room. The Tenant denied intentionally detaching the downpipe and submitted that significant force would be required to cause such detachment.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Landlord has not sufficiently proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the Tenant caused the damage to the downpipe, either carelessly or intentionally. The Tenant presented as credible in her oral evidence and accepted responsibility for other damage to the premises. There is no independent expert evidence presented as to how the detachment could have occurred. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Tenant is liable.
For these reasons the claim is dismissed.
The Landlord also claimed $1414.50 for landscaping costs, because the Tenant had removed or excessively trimmed trees at the front of the property without consent. The Landlord asserted that these trees were intended to provide privacy and that they were significantly cut back. An invoice was submitted for landscaping services, including tidying the property, weeding, mowing, planting new vegetation along the roadside boundary, laying bark, and removing green waste. Additional charges were claimed for materials and dumping fees, including bark nuggets, weed matting, pegs, and ten plants.
The final inspection report recorded the following under “Gardens and Lawns”: “3 outdoor chairs, one wicker and glass outdoor dining table. There are two chairs. 2 x rubbish bags, rubbish in blue recycle bin.” Under the “Comments” section, it was noted: “The tree at the front of the property has been trimmed right back.”
No photographic evidence was provided to show the extent of the trimming at the beginning or end of the tenancy.
The Tenant acknowledged that she trimmed trees a few weeks after the second burglary. She submitted this was for safety reasons, to improve the effectiveness of a sensor light installed in January 2025, which she said did not activate reliably until a person reached the doorstep of the house. She stated that the trees were overhanging the driveway and trimming them was intended to increase visibility and deter future intrusions. The Tenant submitted that she had verbally informed the Landlord of this action during a visit to the property and the Landlord told her this was helpful because the Landlord had not had time to maintain the trees himself. She maintained that only branches were cut, not the trees from the roots.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has not sufficiently proven that the Tenant breached her obligations under the tenancy agreement by causing excessive or unauthorised damage to the trees. There is no photographic evidence establishing the extent of the trimming back at the start or end of the tenancy. While the Landlord alleges the trees were cut "right back," the final inspection report merely confirms that trimming occurred and the damage was not noted in other sections of the report. The tenancy agreement required the Tenant to keep gardens tidy and not to remove any trees or shrubs, but it is unclear whether the Tenant trimming for safety and visibility purposes amounts to a breach. Furthermore, it was unclear from the landscaping invoice how the amount of $815.00 was attributed to the Tenant trimming the tree because there were other tasks included in the invoice which were unrelated to this.
The Tribunal is not satisfied the Landlord’s claim is made out. The claim is dismissed.
The Landlord claimed $750.00 for damage to the boundary fence on the right- hand side of the property. Photographs were submitted showing the fence with a bend of slightly. The Landlord stated that this damage was not reported during the tenancy and was discovered at the end. An invoice for the repair was provided, with the cost shared with the adjoining neighbour. The Landlord also referred to the ingoing inspection report, which recorded the fence as intact.
The Tenant submitted that, at the beginning of the tenancy, the fence was already leaning, although not to the extent shown at the end. She noted that Wellington is a windy area and that the fence had continued to lean more over time, appearing to lean towards the neighbour’s property. The Tenant stated she did not report it because it appeared to be worsening gradually and believed it was due to environmental factors. She recalled attempting to push it back into place without success.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has not proven that the Tenant is liable for the fence damage. The ingoing inspection report dated 27 July 2024 noted that the fence was already leaning at the start of the tenancy. There is no evidence that the Tenant caused or contributed to the deterioration beyond fair wear and tear. I accept that over time, the condition of the fence may have worsened due to environmental exposure.
The claim is dismissed.
As both parties have been substantially successful, name suppression is granted to the Tenant and the Tenant shall pay reimburse the filing fee to the Landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5251860 — net $4,711.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Carpet by consent	$3,750.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet by consent
Carpet assessment by consent	$184.00	Carpet assessment by consent
Painting by consent	$750.00	Painting by consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,711.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,711.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Jacob Adam Robertson $4,711.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant agreed to pay the Landlord the claims made for the carpet replacement, carpet assessment and painting.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Downpipe, boundary fence and damage to trees.
The Landlord submitted that the downpipe located adjacent to the front two bedroom windows was found to be detached from the top at the end of the tenancy. A photograph of the downpipe was provided. The Landlord also submitted an invoice from a plumber for the repair however, the invoice did not provide any explanation for the cause of the detachment. The ingoing inspection report did not record any damage to the downpipe at the commencement of the tenancy.
The Tenant submitted that she was unaware of any damage to the downpipe during the tenancy. She suggested the damage may have occurred during the two burglaries that took place at the property, possibly trying to gain access through the front room. The Tenant denied intentionally detaching the downpipe and submitted that significant force would be required to cause such detachment.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Landlord has not sufficiently proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the Tenant caused the damage to the downpipe, either carelessly or intentionally. The Tenant presented as credible in her oral evidence and accepted responsibility for other damage to the premises. There is no independent expert evidence presented as to how the detachment could have occurred. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Tenant is liable.
For these reasons the claim is dismissed.
The Landlord also claimed $1414.50 for landscaping costs, because the Tenant had removed or excessively trimmed trees at the front of the property without consent. The Landlord asserted that these trees were intended to provide privacy and that they were significantly cut back. An invoice was submitted for landscaping services, including tidying the property, weeding, mowing, planting new vegetation along the roadside boundary, laying bark, and removing green waste. Additional charges were claimed for materials and dumping fees, including bark nuggets, weed matting, pegs, and ten plants.
The final inspection report recorded the following under “Gardens and Lawns”: “3 outdoor chairs, one wicker and glass outdoor dining table. There are two chairs. 2 x rubbish bags, rubbish in blue recycle bin.” Under the “Comments” section, it was noted: “The tree at the front of the property has been trimmed right back.”
No photographic evidence was provided to show the extent of the trimming at the beginning or end of the tenancy.
The Tenant acknowledged that she trimmed trees a few weeks after the second burglary. She submitted this was for safety reasons, to improve the effectiveness of a sensor light installed in January 2025, which she said did not activate reliably until a person reached the doorstep of the house. She stated that the trees were overhanging the driveway and trimming them was intended to increase visibility and deter future intrusions. The Tenant submitted that she had verbally informed the Landlord of this action during a visit to the property and the Landlord told her this was helpful because the Landlord had not had time to maintain the trees himself. She maintained that only branches were cut, not the trees from the roots.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has not sufficiently proven that the Tenant breached her obligations under the tenancy agreement by causing excessive or unauthorised damage to the trees. There is no photographic evidence establishing the extent of the trimming back at the start or end of the tenancy. While the Landlord alleges the trees were cut "right back," the final inspection report merely confirms that trimming occurred and the damage was not noted in other sections of the report. The tenancy agreement required the Tenant to keep gardens tidy and not to remove any trees or shrubs, but it is unclear whether the Tenant trimming for safety and visibility purposes amounts to a breach. Furthermore, it was unclear from the landscaping invoice how the amount of $815.00 was attributed to the Tenant trimming the tree because there were other tasks included in the invoice which were unrelated to this.
The Tribunal is not satisfied the Landlord’s claim is made out. The claim is dismissed.
The Landlord claimed $750.00 for damage to the boundary fence on the right- hand side of the property. Photographs were submitted showing the fence with a bend of slightly. The Landlord stated that this damage was not reported during the tenancy and was discovered at the end. An invoice for the repair was provided, with the cost shared with the adjoining neighbour. The Landlord also referred to the ingoing inspection report, which recorded the fence as intact.
The Tenant submitted that, at the beginning of the tenancy, the fence was already leaning, although not to the extent shown at the end. She noted that Wellington is a windy area and that the fence had continued to lean more over time, appearing to lean towards the neighbour’s property. The Tenant stated she did not report it because it appeared to be worsening gradually and believed it was due to environmental factors. She recalled attempting to push it back into place without success.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has not proven that the Tenant is liable for the fence damage. The ingoing inspection report dated 27 July 2024 noted that the fence was already leaning at the start of the tenancy. There is no evidence that the Tenant caused or contributed to the deterioration beyond fair wear and tear. I accept that over time, the condition of the fence may have worsened due to environmental exposure.
The claim is dismissed.
As both parties have been substantially successful, name suppression is granted to the Tenant and the Tenant shall pay reimburse the filing fee to the Landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5251860 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5251860 — Tenancy dispute

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