What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287419 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 5287419?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287419?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287419?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12410036-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287419 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 5287419?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287419?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287419?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12410036-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5287419 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287419 — net $427.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$400.00	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$427.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$427.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287419 — net $427.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$400.00	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$427.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$427.00

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 tenant/s] must pay Property Brokers Manawatu Limited As Agent For Andrea & Andrew Studholme $427.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The tenant attended the hearing with her lawyer representing her.
The landlord’s property manager attended the hearing, for ease of reference I will refer to the property manager as the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation in respect of damage to the premises and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy commenced in March 2024 and is ongoing.
The tenant’s lawyer had filed submissions in which compensation was sought. I indicated at the hearing that the tenant was making a cross-application, and this required the tenant to file a application in the required form (with the filing fee). The tenant chose not to pursue the cross-application and the hearing proceeded in respect of two claims for compensation for a plumbing invoice and window repair.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: a. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. b. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. c. 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.” Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. TENANT’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGE
When considering a claim in respect of damage to the premises the following principles apply: a. A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 1 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. b. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. c. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 2 d. Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 3 e. 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). 4 f. 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). 5 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 6 g. 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. 7 h. 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. 8 i. In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. 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, I must take 1 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 3 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 4 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 5 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 6 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 7 See section 49B(1) RTA. 8 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

BLOCKED PLUMPING

The landlord says the tenant blocked a drain during the tenancy.
The landlord seeks $819.95 compensation in respect of the blocked drain. The landlord says the blockage must have been the result of the tenant flushing items that should not have been flushed (ie sanitary items, nappies wipes. The landlord notes that 20 litres of items was removed from the pipes. The landlord says there was no issue with the pipes before this tenancy.
The tenant disputes liability for the blockage and also raises that the invoice in respect of the blockage raises concerns about the structure of the pipework.
The invoice said: Travel and inspect job, plunge drain to no sucess. Waterjet blocked sewer, remove wet wipes, plastic tampon dispensers, felt pens etc Camera line and found a large belly in the pipe from gully trap to around side of the house, mark out Recommend replacing that part of sewer-Advise property manager. Clean and sanitise area! 20litre bucket of debree/sanitary products was pulled out from the drain. Also the old house has very low water pressure which does not help flow issues with dodgy pipework.
The landlord accepted that there is a belly in the pipe and is organising landscaping work to be undertaken to rectify this issue.
As I understand it, the belly would have been a sag or low point where the pipe dips below its intended slope, creating a collection area for water and waste. In this case, I understand the belly is the result of the landscaping of the property. The invoice notes the house is old and potentially the age and type of the pipe contributed to the belly in the pipe. In any event, this is a defect or issue in the plumbing. I consider this deterioration likely to be through fair wear and tear.
I therefore consider the invoice raises a number of concerns with the pipes which could have meant that debris was accumulating over a period of time including for a period before this tenancy commenced and culminated in the blockage during this tenancy. This possibility was acknowledged by the landlord to the tenant by way of an email to her on 11 June 2025.
The landlord has provided a document from another plumber to suggest that there is no plumbing faults or dodgy internal drainage issues at the property however the statement is not a dated email, it is not signed, and the second plumber was not called to give evidence. I give this statement little weight and give greater weight to the information provided in the invoice.
Accordingly, I do not consider the landlord has proven the tenant is more likely than not responsible for the damage. As the landlord has not proven the tenant is liable for the damage the claim is dismissed.

WINDOW DAMAGE

I note that this claim was not included in the application form, however the tenant agreed to the matter being heard together with the claim in respect of the plumbing invoice.
The landlord claims compensation $825.25 in respect of a broken window. Photographs of the damage and repair were provided by the tenant and the invoice was provided by the landlord.
The tenant accepts that the toilet window was damaged during the tenancy intentionally by her. The tenant, by way of her lawyer’s submissions said: She had just come back from town with her children, and she left them in the car while she went to pick something up from the house. She went to call the Property Manager but realised left her phone in the locked house. No one else was around, and Ms T... did not have any means of contacting someone for help, so she broke the toilet window at the back of the house and climbed through the window. Ms T... was concerned about how easily she was able to break the wood around the window, and once she got inside, she saw it was rotting. 9
The tenant informed the landlord of the damage and asked for help in arranging a suitable repair, as the condition of the window frame meant the whole fitting would need to be replaced. The tenant wrote to the property manager: “While I understand that I am held liable for fixing it and repairing it, it’s come to my attention that it may need a more in depth repair. While I understand your request to resolve this by 3 June, I respectfully ask for your assistance in arranging the repair, as this falls under property 9 Submissions of tenant, 12 September 2025 at 4. maintenance and is not something I am equipped to manage myself. I could potentially damage it more trying to fix it and may cost more.” 10
The landlord duly attended to the repair.
The issue in this case is whether the amount ordered to be paid by the tenant should be less than the full invoice to repair the window.
The tenant disputes liability for the full amount of the window repair and suggests her liability should be limited to a third of the repair cost to take into account betterment and depreciation.
The tenant submits that the bulk of the repair relates to the cost of the repair of the window frame which the tenant says had some rot.
The landlord was unable to advise the age of the house. The tenant’s lawyer said an online search indicates the house was built in the 1940’s.
The invoice was for a total of $825.25 for the items: Remove old broken window Rebuilt window New glass New finished trims on inside Painted
The specific items are not itemised, so it is unclear how much the new glass was and how much the material for the window frame was and how much labour was.
The quote from the window repairer reads: Remove window frame and louver window. Replace window frame and put a piece of flexi glass in new trim around window.... Description QtyPriceTotal Labour4$150.00$600.00 Material1$225.00$225.00... ...Total$825.00
The landlord said the tenant was not charged for the flexi-glass installation however the quote reflects a fee for the flexi-glass installation for which the tenant is not liable for as this was additional work to ensure compliance with the 10 Ibid at 9. Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show the installation of the flexi-glass was invoiced separately. It appears likely, given the level of the quote aligns with the amount invoiced, that the landlord is seeking to hold the tenant liable for the additional cost of the flexi-glass installation.
In addition, I note the photographs show the window frame was aged and deteriorating prior to the tenant breaking the window.
The work undertaken has seen the window frame rebuilt and painted.
In taking into account betterment and depreciation I consider the tenant should compensate the landlord $400 to reflect the breach of her responsibilities. Accordingly, that is the amount ordered.
The amount ordered is proved.

FILING FEE

If an applicant has been partly successful in their claim, the Tribunal may order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application. 11 As the landlord as partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

SUPPRESSION

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. 12
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 13
Both parties sought name suppression.
As the tenant has successfully defended a substantial part of the landlord’s claim the tenant is entitled to name suppression and name suppression is ordered.
As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful with the claim the landlord is not entitled to name suppression. The public interest in the 11 See section 102 (4)(b) of the RTA. 12 See section 95A (1) of the RTA. 13 See section 95A (4) of the RTA. landlord’s name being published outweighs the interest the landlord has in name suppression. Name suppression for the landlord is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287419 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287419 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

BLOCKED PLUMPING

WINDOW DAMAGE

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

BLOCKED PLUMPING

WINDOW DAMAGE

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions