What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5265180 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Inspire Property

How much money was awarded in case 5265180?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $158.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5265180?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5265180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12273734-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5265180 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Inspire Property

How much money was awarded in case 5265180?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $158.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5265180?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5265180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12273734-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34A Blunt Road, Te Kauwhata, Te Kauwhata 3710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5265180 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5265180 — net $785.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$158.54	2. The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Repairs: Walls and ceiling repairs	$600.00	Repairs: Walls and ceiling repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$785.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$785.54

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenants did not attend.

The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The Tenancy began in January 2018 and ended on 28 February 2025.

How much is owed for water rates arrears?

The tenancy ended on the 28 February 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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: wall and ceiling damage.

The Landlord seeks compensation in the amount of $3,128.00 for damage alleged to have been caused to the walls and ceilings throughout the premises. Their claim includes patching of holes on the ceiling, window frames, and door frames, as well as painting in the hallway and on the right-hand side of the kitchen wall. In support of this claim, the Landlord submitted an ingoing inspection report dated 22 January 2018, which recorded the property, including the walls, to be in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The Landlord also provided photographs taken at the end of the tenancy and an invoice to substantiate the amount claimed. The photographs primarily depicted nail holes, dents, and scratches concentrated in the dining area, a few small holes in a bedroom wall, and what appeared to be painting works in the corner wall of the kitchen.

The Tenants submitted, via email, that certain marks and scuffs on the walls were pre-existing at the start of the tenancy. They claimed there was already a patched area on the lounge ceiling and a watermark present in the bedroom. The Tenants also noted that neither the current property manager nor the Landlord was present at the commencement of the tenancy to verify or assess any pre-existing damage.

In considering the evidence presented by both parties, I find that the Landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to justify the total amount claimed or to support the extent of the repairs undertaken. Specifically, there is inadequate evidence to establish that painting was required throughout the entire hallway or on the full side wall of the kitchen. Most of the photographic evidence relates to the dining area, where approximately fourteen areas of minor damage (small nail holes/scratches/gouges) are visible. Additionally, there appear to be approximately six areas of minor damage in the bathroom and two areas of minor damage in the kitchen. The scope of the works undertaken, particularly the repainting, does not correlate with the documented damage. Furthermore, no evidence was submitted showing any damage to the hallway. I accept that some of the damage exceeds fair wear and tear. Based on the photographic evidence and taking all relevant factors into account, I find that a reasonable amount for compensation is $600.00.

The amounts ordered are proven.

In determining the appropriate compensation, I have considered the principles of betterment and depreciation. The Landlord is entitled to be restored to the position they would have been in had the Tenants not breached their obligations, but not to a position of improvement. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the relevant items at the start of the tenancy, along with their expected useful lifespan.

As the Landlord has been substantially successful in their claim, the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5265180 — net $785.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$158.54	2. The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Repairs: Walls and ceiling repairs	$600.00	Repairs: Walls and ceiling repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$785.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$785.54

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Virushini Naicker/Avn Investments Limited $785.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenants did not attend.
The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Tenancy began in January 2018 and ended on 28 February 2025.

How much is owed for water rates arrears?

The tenancy ended on the 28 February 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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: wall and ceiling damage.
The Landlord seeks compensation in the amount of $3,128.00 for damage alleged to have been caused to the walls and ceilings throughout the premises. Their claim includes patching of holes on the ceiling, window frames, and door frames, as well as painting in the hallway and on the right-hand side of the kitchen wall. In support of this claim, the Landlord submitted an ingoing inspection report dated 22 January 2018, which recorded the property, including the walls, to be in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The Landlord also provided photographs taken at the end of the tenancy and an invoice to substantiate the amount claimed. The photographs primarily depicted nail holes, dents, and scratches concentrated in the dining area, a few small holes in a bedroom wall, and what appeared to be painting works in the corner wall of the kitchen.
The Tenants submitted, via email, that certain marks and scuffs on the walls were pre-existing at the start of the tenancy. They claimed there was already a patched area on the lounge ceiling and a watermark present in the bedroom. The Tenants also noted that neither the current property manager nor the Landlord was present at the commencement of the tenancy to verify or assess any pre-existing damage.
In considering the evidence presented by both parties, I find that the Landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to justify the total amount claimed or to support the extent of the repairs undertaken. Specifically, there is inadequate evidence to establish that painting was required throughout the entire hallway or on the full side wall of the kitchen. Most of the photographic evidence relates to the dining area, where approximately fourteen areas of minor damage (small nail holes/scratches/gouges) are visible. Additionally, there appear to be approximately six areas of minor damage in the bathroom and two areas of minor damage in the kitchen. The scope of the works undertaken, particularly the repainting, does not correlate with the documented damage. Furthermore, no evidence was submitted showing any damage to the hallway. I accept that some of the damage exceeds fair wear and tear. Based on the photographic evidence and taking all relevant factors into account, I find that a reasonable amount for compensation is $600.00.
The amounts ordered are proven.
In determining the appropriate compensation, I have considered the principles of betterment and depreciation. The Landlord is entitled to be restored to the position they would have been in had the Tenants not breached their obligations, but not to a position of improvement. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the relevant items at the start of the tenancy, along with their expected useful lifespan.
As the Landlord has been substantially successful in their claim, the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5265180 — Property damage at 34A Blunt Road, Te Kauwhata, Te Kauwhata 3710

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5265180 — Property damage at 34A Blunt Road, Te Kauwhata, Te Kauwhata 3710

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates arrears?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates arrears?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.