How much money was awarded in case 5280138?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; To The Bath: $460.00 awarded to landlord; To Walls: $507.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280138?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280138?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12644457-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5280138?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; To The Bath: $460.00 awarded to landlord; To Walls: $507.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280138?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280138?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12644457-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

90 Longfellow Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5280138 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5280138 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5280138 — net $994.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: to the bath	$460.00	Repairs: to the bath
Repairs: to walls	$507.00	Repairs: to walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$994.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$994.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

BY CONSENT - The suction tool must be delivered to the offices of the landlord property manager and this must be done by 5pm on Tuesday 4 November 2025.

Ashley Krijnen and Jonathon Braniff must pay [The landlord/s] $994.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There are two claims for damage. The 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 tenants 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 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. See section 49B(3)(a) 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.

There is a claim for repairing damage to the bath because the landlord found a small hole when completing the final inspection. The tenants said the hole was not there when the tenancy ended. I have been provided with photos the landlord said were taken the day after the tenancy ended. The tenants raised concerns that the photos were taken more than a month after the end of the tenancy, and therefore anyone could have damaged the bath.

I have considered the evidence and the submissions. It seems most likely to me the photos were taken the day after the tenancy ended. I find the damage happened during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved.

There is a claim for damage to walls. The landlord provided photos which I find show there was damage to the walls during the tenancy. I find it was more than fair wear and tear. The damage occurred when the tenants repaired the walls after taking down shelves and other fixtures at the end of the tenancy. The tenants said they did the best job they could given the time and resources available to them. They asked that I take the general condition of the house when they moved in into account, including the areas that needed repairs and were worn.

It seems most likely to me the tenants damaged the walls, even though they were trying to make repairs. This is because the repairs were not to a good standard. It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out further repairs to the walls. The amount ordered is proved.

The claim for the shower caddy was withdrawn at the hearing. Other orders

I have not allowed the claim for rubbish removal because the photos taken at the final inspection do not prove the claim. This claim is dismissed.

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants’ names will be published because there is public interest when tenants have to pay money at the end of a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5280138 — net $994.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: to the bath	$460.00	Repairs: to the bath
Repairs: to walls	$507.00	Repairs: to walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$994.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$994.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
BY CONSENT - The suction tool must be delivered to the offices of the landlord property manager and this must be done by 5pm on Tuesday 4 November 2025.
Ashley Krijnen and Jonathon Braniff must pay [The landlord/s] $994.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There are two claims for damage. The 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 tenants 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 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. See section 49B(3)(a) 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.
There is a claim for repairing damage to the bath because the landlord found a small hole when completing the final inspection. The tenants said the hole was not there when the tenancy ended. I have been provided with photos the landlord said were taken the day after the tenancy ended. The tenants raised concerns that the photos were taken more than a month after the end of the tenancy, and therefore anyone could have damaged the bath.
I have considered the evidence and the submissions. It seems most likely to me the photos were taken the day after the tenancy ended. I find the damage happened during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved.
There is a claim for damage to walls. The landlord provided photos which I find show there was damage to the walls during the tenancy. I find it was more than fair wear and tear. The damage occurred when the tenants repaired the walls after taking down shelves and other fixtures at the end of the tenancy. The tenants said they did the best job they could given the time and resources available to them. They asked that I take the general condition of the house when they moved in into account, including the areas that needed repairs and were worn.
It seems most likely to me the tenants damaged the walls, even though they were trying to make repairs. This is because the repairs were not to a good standard. It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out further repairs to the walls. The amount ordered is proved.
The claim for the shower caddy was withdrawn at the hearing. Other orders
I have not allowed the claim for rubbish removal because the photos taken at the final inspection do not prove the claim. This claim is dismissed.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants’ names will be published because there is public interest when tenants have to pay money at the end of a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5280138 — Property damage at 90 Longfellow Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5280138 — Property damage at 90 Longfellow Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions