What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288041 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 5288041?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $237.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $266.23 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288041?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288041?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12451414-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288041 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 5288041?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $237.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $266.23 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288041?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288041?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12451414-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5288041 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288041 — net $530.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$237.00	Lock/key replacement
Replacement washing machine hose	$266.23	Replacement washing machine hose
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$530.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$530.23

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $530.23 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear, and unsuccessful attempts were made to join them to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
The tenancy commenced on 23 November 2024 with the fixed term due to expire on 23 October 2025. The landlord stated the parties agreed to end the fixed term early on 17 April 2025.
On 16 June 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking outstanding water rates, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. 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.
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.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord seeks outstanding water rates for the period 15 March 2025, when the Body Corporate completed the last water reading, to 17 April 2025, when the tenant vacated the property. The amount claimed totals $24.05. At the hearing, the landlord acknowledged the tenant had not been invoiced for the water rates charges.
As the landlord had not properly invoiced the tenant for the water rates charges, the claim is dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices, see section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the Act.
The tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks $237.00 after paying a contractor to change the locks and an invoice was provided for the amount claimed. The amount claimed is ordered.
A washing machine was provided as a chattel of the property for use by the tenant. At the end of the tenancy the washing machine wastewater hose was missing. The landlord seeks $266.23 after paying a contractor to replace and fit a new wastewater hose.
Having heard from the landlord and reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied that the wastewater hose was missing at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

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 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 seeks compensation for the following damage they say was caused by the tenant during the tenancy: a. Missing rubbers from the bathroom and bedroom door stoppers. b. The toilet seat in the laundry came away from the hinge. c. The toilet seat hinges were loose in the upstairs toilet. d. The toilet roll holder had come off in the laundry toilet and the toilet roll holder in the upstairs toilet had become loose. e. A kitchen cupboard door did not close properly, requiring the hinge to be adjusted.
The landlord seeks compensation of $343.82 after paying a contractor to undertake the repair work and provided an invoice for the amount claimed.
Under the Act, tenants are responsible for damage that they or their guests cause to a property, but they are not responsible for maintenance costs that arise from ordinary use. Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the premises in a reasonable stated of repair.
Having heard from the landlord and reviewing the pre-tenancy inspection photographs and the end of tenancy inspection photographs the Tribunal finds that the claims in respect of fitting a new toilet seat to the laundry toilet, securing the loose toilet seat in the upstairs toilet, securing the loose toilet roll holders in both toilets and adjusting the kitchen cupboard door hinge, are minor repairs arising from ordinary use and not actual damage to the premises. The claim for compensation is dismissed
With regards to the claim for costs to fit rubbers to the bathroom and bedroom door stoppers, there was insufficient evidence to prove the stoppers were present at the commencement of the tenancy and the claim is dismissed. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression
Under section 95A of the Act, a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
Despite not attending the hearing the tenant has also been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288041 — net $530.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$237.00	Lock/key replacement
Replacement washing machine hose	$266.23	Replacement washing machine hose
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$530.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$530.23

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $530.23 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear, and unsuccessful attempts were made to join them to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
The tenancy commenced on 23 November 2024 with the fixed term due to expire on 23 October 2025. The landlord stated the parties agreed to end the fixed term early on 17 April 2025.
On 16 June 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking outstanding water rates, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. 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.
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.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord seeks outstanding water rates for the period 15 March 2025, when the Body Corporate completed the last water reading, to 17 April 2025, when the tenant vacated the property. The amount claimed totals $24.05. At the hearing, the landlord acknowledged the tenant had not been invoiced for the water rates charges.
As the landlord had not properly invoiced the tenant for the water rates charges, the claim is dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices, see section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the Act.
The tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks $237.00 after paying a contractor to change the locks and an invoice was provided for the amount claimed. The amount claimed is ordered.
A washing machine was provided as a chattel of the property for use by the tenant. At the end of the tenancy the washing machine wastewater hose was missing. The landlord seeks $266.23 after paying a contractor to replace and fit a new wastewater hose.
Having heard from the landlord and reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied that the wastewater hose was missing at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

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 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 seeks compensation for the following damage they say was caused by the tenant during the tenancy: a. Missing rubbers from the bathroom and bedroom door stoppers. b. The toilet seat in the laundry came away from the hinge. c. The toilet seat hinges were loose in the upstairs toilet. d. The toilet roll holder had come off in the laundry toilet and the toilet roll holder in the upstairs toilet had become loose. e. A kitchen cupboard door did not close properly, requiring the hinge to be adjusted.
The landlord seeks compensation of $343.82 after paying a contractor to undertake the repair work and provided an invoice for the amount claimed.
Under the Act, tenants are responsible for damage that they or their guests cause to a property, but they are not responsible for maintenance costs that arise from ordinary use. Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the premises in a reasonable stated of repair.
Having heard from the landlord and reviewing the pre-tenancy inspection photographs and the end of tenancy inspection photographs the Tribunal finds that the claims in respect of fitting a new toilet seat to the laundry toilet, securing the loose toilet seat in the upstairs toilet, securing the loose toilet roll holders in both toilets and adjusting the kitchen cupboard door hinge, are minor repairs arising from ordinary use and not actual damage to the premises. The claim for compensation is dismissed
With regards to the claim for costs to fit rubbers to the bathroom and bedroom door stoppers, there was insufficient evidence to prove the stoppers were present at the commencement of the tenancy and the claim is dismissed. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression
Under section 95A of the Act, a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
Despite not attending the hearing the tenant has also been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288041 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288041 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions