What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5257134?

The tribunal order states: Dasun Nandaratna to pay Zhi Qiao and Chaohui Qiao $220.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5257134?

Water Rates: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Covering: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257134?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257134?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13653708-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5257134?

The tribunal order states: Dasun Nandaratna to pay Zhi Qiao and Chaohui Qiao $220.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5257134?

Water Rates: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Covering: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257134?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257134?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13653708-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24B Marydale Drive, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5257134 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5257134 — net $220.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Window repairs	$220.00		Window repairs
Compensation: water rates fixed costs	$500.00		water rates fixed costs
Repairs: wall covering		$500.00	Repairs: wall covering
Total award	$720.00	$500.00
Net award	$220.00
Bond	$1,560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$220.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5257134 — net $220.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Window repairs	$220.00		Window repairs
Compensation: water rates fixed costs	$500.00		water rates fixed costs
Repairs: wall covering		$500.00	Repairs: wall covering
Total award	$720.00	$500.00
Net award	$220.00
Bond	$1,560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$220.00

Order

Dasun Nandaratna to pay Zhi Qiao and Chaohui Qiao $220.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 (5686847-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Zhi Qiao and Chaohui Qiao: $220.00 Dasun Nandaratna: $1,340.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Chaohui (Tony) Qiao attended for the landlord, assisted by George Qiao. The Tribunal and Chaohui Qiao were assisted by a Mandarin interpreter Mr Zhang.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation for overpaid water rates and reimbursement of the filing fee. Burden of proof:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the is burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike 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.
If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
I am familiar with all of the information supplied to the Tribunal by each party even though I do not refer to every piece. The tenant’s claim

How much is owed for overpaid water rates?

The parties agree the tenancy began on 14 January 2015 and ended on 5 March 2025.
The tenant said that during the tenancy he paid the whole of the water bill including water use, waste-water use and fixed costs. He said he is seeking the refund of $500.00 for the fixed costs which he was not liable for.
The Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) section 39(3) says a tenant is is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities.
Case law has found that this includes water and waste-water usage but does not included fixed charges. Fixed charges remain the responsibility of the landlord.
The tenant did not bring water rates invoices or any calculations for his claim. He said he was seeking $400.00 to $500.00 compensation.
The landlord agreed to pay $500.00 compensation.
This claim was settled with the consent of both parties. The landlord’s claims

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 is making the following claims: a. Replacement of the carpet: $5,250.00 b. Repairs to wallpaper damage: $5,500.00 c. Replace kitchen counter-top: $3,600.00 d. Repair broken window: $220.00 e. Repair bathroom flooring: $12,500.00
The photographs produced by both parties show this property during this tenancy to be a basic low-cost rental property. The landlord said the house was built in the 1980’s. This means the house is over forty years old. It is a standard house commonly referred to as “brick and tile” construction, meaning the cladding is brick and the roof is tiled, sometimes concrete tiles and sometimes metal with a coating on top.
The photographs show that even if this place was renovated just before they purchased it in 2015 as the landlord claimed, it has retained many original features, including he kitchen, which looks original. The bathroom has obviously been refitted.
The landlord provided photographs taken by the real estate agent when they were marketing the property for sale. These are photographs of the property being staged. The photographs are designed to make the property look beautiful and to avoid showing any faults. I do not consider them a reasonable representation of the premises at the start of the tenancy. The window
The landlord is claiming $220.00 for a broken window
The tenant does not dispute breaking the window and has agreed to pay for these repairs. This claim is proved by consent. The carpet
The landlord said the carpet had been installed when the house was renovated just before they purchased it in 2015. Exactly when the carpet was installed is not certain, but it is likely it was installed in 2014, meaning by the end of the tenancy the carpet was at least ten years old.
The landlord did not provide any photographs of the carpet taken from the start of the tenancy or during the tenancy.
The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy the carpet throughout the house had many stains and smelled of cat urine. The landlord said that the tenant kept an unauthorised pet during the tenancy. The landlord is seeking full replacement value of the carpet.
The landlord provided some photographs which showed several mild to moderate stains in several areas of the house at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant said that for a period of one month from December 2024 until January 2025 they pet-sat a friend’s cat. They said the cat was kept in at night and always used a kitty-litter box for poo’s and wee’s except on one occasion when the cat wee-ed downstairs by the garage door.
The tenant called Ms Nandaratna as a witness. Ms Nandaratna said they pet- sat the cat for one month. The cat had been trained to use the kitty-litter box and was very well behaved. She said she kept the cat in her room at night. She also said the cat only once urinated on the carpet.
The tenant produced a photograph of the full living room at the end of the tenancy. The photograph shows the carpet to be well worn and have stretch wrinkles in places. There are some marks visible but nothing exceptional. The carpet looks to be in acceptable condition for a basic rental property.
The tenant said the stains were caused during the tenancy, but he had no recollection of how each of the stains was caused, or when they happened.
I considered Ms Nandaratna an honest and straight-forward witness. I had no reason to doubt her version of events.
I considered the tenant Mr Nandaratna to be on the whole honest, although occasionally vague when I asked him direct questions.
I am not persuaded the cat urinated throughout the house. I accept the tenant’s information that the cat was well trained and when inside used the kitty-litter box if needed.
The stains as I see them in the photographs are not exceptional and do not go beyond fair wear and tear for a tenancy of over ten years. Although it is likely the stains occurred during the tenancy, even this is not proved due to lack of start of tenancy photographs.
Careless damage is not proved for the carpet.
Even if careless damage was proved, I must consider betterment and depreciation. According to the Inland Revenue document IR265, carpets may be depreciated over 8 years. This means the carpet in this premises has $0.00 residual value in the first instance. Wallpaper damage
The landlord is claiming $5,500.00 to repaint the premises due to the wallpaper being damaged.
The landlord provided photographs from the end of the tenancy, which show the wallpaper throughout the house to have many surface scrapes and tears, and in some rooms small areas where the wallpaper has been ripped off.
The photographs taken by the real estate agent for promotional purposes, do not provide a fair representation of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
No start of tenancy photographs of the wallpaper have been provided.
No reliable information about the age of the wallpaper at the start of the tenancy has been provided.
Despite the above, the landlord said the wallpaper was in very good condition at the start of the tenancy and this information was not disputed by the tenant.
The tenant could not explain how each scrape, rip or tear occurred.
The tenant called his witness, Ms Nandaratna who said she believed some of the tears had occurred when sticky hooks that were meant to be able to be safely removed, nonetheless pulled the wallpaper away when they were removed.
In the absence of any definitive information about the age of the wallpaper, I determine from what I can see of the style of the wallpaper in the photographs and the photographs of the original kitchen in the promotional photographs (which tells me the “full-renovation” did not include renewing every interior fixture and fitting), and what I know about the age of the house, that the wallpaper was not new at the start of the tenancy. The rips and tears look to me to be consistent with aged wallpaper that has begun to fall away from the wall and has softened over time. I expect the excellent appearance of the wallpaper that the landlord refers to, is due to the wallpaper being painted during the renovation.
I take into account the tenancy was over ten years and there is accumulated wear and tear.
I am persuaded that some of the scrapes, tears and rips in the wallpaper are the result of careless damage, and others are fair wear and tear. In particular I note tears in the stairwell, living and dining area and entrance go beyond fair wear and tear.
Some careless damage is proved. The amount being claimed by the landlord is to repaint the whole interior. The tenant must only pay a proportion of redecoration costs relative to the amount of careless damage. I consider $500.00 is sufficient to repair the areas of careless damage.
The amount ordered is proved. The kitchen counter-top
The landlord is claiming $3,600.00 to replace the kitchen counter-top.
The landlord said that during the tenancy the caulking holding the kitchen sink to the counter-top failed and the sink began to fall away. This allowed water into the cabinetry which damaged the framing. The landlord also said there were knife marks on the counter-top.
The landlord provided a photograph showing the tenant’s dishrack on the bench. The landlord pointed out there is no tray underneath the dishrack meaning water falls from the drying dishes directly onto the counter-top.
Photographs from the real-estate’s promotional material show the kitchen to be in good condition. I note however the kitchen appears to be a 1970’s or 1980’s style kitchen with a narrow stainless steel sink insert in a plastic or resin style counter-top. The cupboard doors look to be timber veneer or timber composite. It is likely the kitchen is the original kitchen, and that it is approximately forty years old.
The tenant said they notified the landlord of the sink falling away from the counter-top in 2018. At that time the landlord said there was a lack of building materials and declined to fix it. The tenant said they continued to let the landlord know about the continuing deterioration of the sink throughout the tenancy, but the landlord always declined to fix it. Eventually the tenants used a chopped down broom handle to prop up the sink.
The tenant said he wasn’t aware of the cutmarks in the counter-top.
I determine the sink falling away from the counter-top is the result of the caulking failing in a kitchen that is approximately forty years old. Although this is not a common occurrence, there is no information that suggests the tenants have acted carelessly. Counter-tops are expected to be waterproof. I determine there is no fault in the tenants not putting a tray under their dishrack.
The landlord has not proved the damage of the knife cuts in the benchtop.
This claim is not proved. The bathroom floor
The landlord is seeking $12,500.00 to replace the entire bathroom.
The landlord says the flooring outside the bathroom became soft, and this indicates the tenant spilled water on the bathroom floor which flowed to outside the bathroom.
The landlord also says an area of the floor inside the bathroom became soft which also is the result of the tenant allowing water to pool on the bathroom floor.
The landlord said the floor becoming soft in and around the bathroom goes beyond fair wear and tear and was caused by the tenant’s careless act. The landlord said because the floor needed replacing it was also necessary to replace all the cabinetry and bathroom fittings as well.
The floor inside the bathroom is tiled. The floor outside the bathroom is carpet.
The landlord provided photographs of the carpet outside the bathroom pulled back to show the flooring, which looks water stained and structurally degraded.
I asked the landlord if he knew what the flooring product is. The landlord said he did not know.
I may make use of any facts that may be judicially noticed. See RTA section 97(5).
I can identify the flooring product as particle board. Next to the particle board a sheet of treated plywood is also visible. The landlord said the plywood dates from an earlier repair. There are no photographs which show, and no information about the flooring inside the bathroom. The area where the landlord said the flooring was soft, is the particle board.
Particle board was a common flooring product used in the 1970’s and 1980’s. It has continued to be used until today although in wet areas the underlayer of flooring now is more likely to be treated plywood with a waterproof layer on top.
A search of “Particle board” online produces the following information:
Further searches of “life expectancy of particle board” produces the following result:
On another occasion I have seen online search results which say particle board can last 30 years. This is not 100% reliable information, but it does indicate that because of the way particle board is manufactured, it has a limited life expectancy that is shortened when exposed to moisture and other factors.
The landlord’s photographs show the particle board to be flaking and cracked. It is significantly degraded.
The landlord said that when he conducted an inspection of the premises, he saw water pooling on the bathroom floor. The landlord made an insurance claim to replace the flooring and the bathroom.
The tenant said they first noticed the landlord in October 2023 that the floor was soft in front of the vanity and outside the bathroom. They said that subsequently they made further complaints to the landlord but he didn’t attend or inspect.
The tenant said their view was that the rubber seals on the shower door were old and no longer effective, and they allowed water to leak out onto the bathroom floor.
The tenant said that when the landlord corresponded with the tenant about the bathroom floor issue, the landlord indicated that it would be better from an insurance point of view to say there had been a one-off incident rather than gradual damage. The tenant said the landlord wanted the tenant to say there had been a flood and water had gone out the bathroom door.
The landlord denied saying he asked the tenant to change his story.
The landlord said the insurance assessor concluded the damage was gradual damage and not caused by a one-off incident.
An email from the landlord to the tenant, dated 23 October (2024) says the following:
The tenant said he believed his contribution to the damaged flooring to be the result of water leaking out of the shower over a period of time due to the rubber seals being old and ineffective. He said the landlord was advised this was happening but the landlord did not do anything about it.
The landlord said water leaked onto the floor then leaked through the tiles because one of them was cracked. The tenant said he had advised the landlord of the cracked tile but the landlord had not fixed it. The tenant showed a 20 second video taken from under the house which shows water dripping through a particle board floor. The tenant said this was taken underneath the cracked tile. He said the water may have tracked along beneath the tiles to damage the bathroom and hallway floor. The tenant said there had not been a one-off incident in which water had flooded out of the bathroom.
The tenant also said that when the carpet outside the bathroom had been pulled up, the carpet was damp.
The tenant’s witness Ms Nandaratna, said she had no recollection of the carpet outside the bathroom ever being damp or wet.
In the first instance the landlord must prove on the balance of probabilities that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. When I consider the particle board is approximately forty years old, and has been used in and adjacent to a wet area, above a cavity which includes a garage and bare ground (which is likely to have relatively high levels of dampness), I am not persuaded that the damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The condition of the particle board is degraded, but this is to be expected in forty year old particle board flooring used directly above bare ground and a garage, in and around a bathroom.
Nor am I persuaded the tenant has been careless in his use of the bathroom. The landlord produced photographs that show water on the bathroom floor, but that is the nature of a bathroom; this does not prove to me careless use.
The photographs of the particle board in the hallway do not prove there has been water flooding onto it, but if I was satisfied they did, I would also have to be satisfied that there was some basis to find the flood had been caused by the tenant or that the tenant had caused careless damage in some other way. I am not.
The floor had had 30 years of use before the tenant moved in, and it is likely that there were other incidents in this period.
I find the correspondence from the landlord is also sufficient to cast doubt on the reliability of whatever was said between the parties in relation to the cause of the floor damage, because I am satisfied the landlord was pointing the tenant towards giving information that would support the landlord’s insurance claim.
For the above reasons the claim for bathroom repairs is not proved.
Because both parties have been partially successful in their claims, I let the filing fee costs lie where they fall.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257134 — Property damage at 24B Marydale Drive, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257134 — Property damage at 24B Marydale Drive, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for overpaid 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 overpaid water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions