What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288960 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 5288960?

Previous Order Application 5218651 D…: $1,842.50 awarded to tenant; Dent In Sleepout: $142.34 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Drill Holes: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288960?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12372454-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288960 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 5288960?

Previous Order Application 5218651 D…: $1,842.50 awarded to tenant; Dent In Sleepout: $142.34 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Drill Holes: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288960?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12372454-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5288960 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288960 — net $1,660.16 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Garage door drill holes	$40.00		Repairs: Garage door drill holes
Repairs: Dent in sleepout	$142.34		Repairs: Dent in sleepout
Previous order application 5218651 dated 24/06/2025		$1,842.50	Previous order application 5218651 dated 24/06/2025
Total award	$182.34	$1,842.50
Net award		$1,660.16
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,660.16

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord’s claims for damage to the deck, vanity and outdoor drop down and the claim for a replacement garage door remote are not proven and therefore dismissed.
Dequn Zeng must pay [The tenant/s] $1,660.16 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 21 August 2025.
These parties have been the subject of three previous orders. An order dated 24 June 2025 determining the tenant’s claims whereby I awarded the tenant $1842.50, an order striking out some of the landlord’s claims on the 13 August 2025, and an order declining a rehearing application.
The hearing on the 21 August 2025 was to determine the landlord’s remaining claims.
At the hearing on the 21 August both parties sought to relitigate matters that I had already determined. I confirmed both at the hearing and in this decision that once a decision has been made, if the parties are not satisfied with the decision, then they can appeal that decision. They cannot refile a new application or seek to relitigate a determination at a hearing about other claims.
The remaining claims that require determination are the landlord’s claims for: a. Compensation for a garage door remote that was not returned. b. Compensation for damage to the garage door- drill holes. c. Compensation for the cost of repairing the deck. d. Compensation for a dent to the wall in the sleep out. (Paint and plaster) e. Compensation for damage to the vanity. f. Compensation for damage to the outdoor screen.
The parties filed considerable evidence in respect of these claims. I confirm that I have considered all the evidence, both submitted at hearing and on the file before determining these claims. The garage remote
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1
The tenants say that one of the garage door remotes fell apart during the tenancy and was not replaced and that is why they only returned one garage door remote.
I am satisfied that one of the garage door remotes broke due to age, during the tenancy and was not replaced and that is why it was not handed back. I say this because photographs showing the garage door remote at the beginning of the tenancy, show it with tape around it and it was described in the ingoing tenancy inspection report as “old and wear” (sic).
The tenant is not liable for the replacement garage door remote. The law relating to damage.
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 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 2
Fair wear and tear is the decline in the condition of a property due to ordinary, everyday use.
The property has several timber decks. The landlord says that the decking needed repair and replacement due to the tenant using the decks to store wood used in his building business. The landlord also says that there was a small hole in the deck from the legs of a table saw.
Both parties provided me with photographs of the deck. That evidence was very helpful in allowing me to consider the condition of the property at the beginning of, during and at the end of the tenancy.
The condition of the deck deteriorated over the tenancy, but it did so in a way that was as a result of ordinary everyday use. The deck became weathered as all decks do over time. The staining is worn, simply from people walking on the deck and stairs in the usual way.
Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that this damage was fair wear and tear for the following reasons. a. The photographs show the staining is worn in areas simply by people standing/ walking on the decks. This is evident because it is in the usual pattern and pathway of where people would walk or stand on the deck. b. There is no evidence that the storage of the wood on the deck caused any accelerated wear. c. I do not consider that the storage of the timber on the decks for short periods was an unusual use of the deck. People keep firewood and other items stacked on their decks. d. The table timber saw on the deck was no different than an outdoor furniture table being on the deck. It does not appear to put a bigger load on the deck.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the deck is not proven and therefore dismissed. The drill holes in the garage door.
The tenant accepts that the drill holes in the garage door were as a result of the removal of security camera he installed.
The tenant says that the holes could be filled by plugs or screws at a cost of no more than $30.00. 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
When tenants put up pictures, or instal tv brackets or security cameras, they have an obligation to ensure that they make good any damage that they cause, when they leave the property. This means filling holes etc.
I am satisfied that the tenant caused the damage to the garage door by installing a security camera. I consider the reasonable remedy to this would be to bung the holes with screws or plugs.
The landlord has not yet done this work and estimates that the work will cost $300.00. The tenant says that this is excessive, it is an easy job and requires buying 2 plugs/screws and putting them in.
I have allowed $50.00 for this work; this includes materials and the cost of installing them. Paint damage to the wall in the sleepout.
The landlord says that the dent to a wall in the sleepout about the size of a 50 cent coin. The tenant accepts that this damage occurred during the tenancy, probably when moving out. The tenant says it is on a wall with a curtain covering where the damage would be.
The landlord has fixed the wall at their own cost, by plastering and painting over the wall. They seek $142.34 being the cost of materials and work.
I am satisfied that the tenants caused the damage carelessly when moving furniture during the tenancy and are liable for the cost of the repairs, which I consider reasonable for the work involved. The bathroom vanity.
The landlord is seeking the replacement cost of the vanity. It says that the vanity was damaged during the tenancy.
The vanity has become damaged on the veneer on the bath side. The damage is only visible to someone sitting in the bath.
The landlord showed me photographs of the damage. The damage looks like water damage. It is damage most likely caused by water sitting on the vanity surface. This could be from water being splashed from the bath or from condensation.
Both parties took photographs of the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy, but neither had photographs of this side of the vanity.
I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for this damage for the following reasons: a. There was no evidence of what the condition of the panel was at the beginning of the tenancy. b. It appears that the damage has been caused by water, and the bathroom being used in the usual way. There is no rail for a shower curtain between the bath and the vanity. In other words, the damage did not occur because the tenants did not take necessary steps to stop water damage, such as using a shower curtain. c. The landlord accepted that during inspections of the property it never noticed any issue with the vanity. The tenants say they never noticed this damage either. It is unlikely that this damage occurred from a one-off event, rather it appears to be damage caused over time. d. Even if I had considered that the tenants were liable (which I do not). I would not have been satisfied that the vanity needed replacement. The outdoor drop-down screen.
The landlord says that the tenant broke the plastic screen. Both parties had photographs of the screen. The tenants had photographs of the screen at the beginning of the tenancy. It showed a segment of clear plastic screen had become milky and brittle from the sun. This damage is also noted in the ingoing inspection report. The tenants are not liable for this damage.
The tenants had the screen repaired so they could use it by removing the milky portion, this left them with a shorter drop down, but one that was usable. Instead of the drop down going to floor length, it now dropped slightly below the wall. This meant that the screen was still able to be used (and in fact was better because it was now see-through and not brittle). It was still fully functional. Set off of landlord’s awards against amount awarded to tenant on the 24 June.
I have set off the amount awarded to the landlord against the amount awarded to the tenant in my decision of the 24 June 2025. To be clear for enforcement purposes the landlord must pay the tenant the amount of $1,660.16. Filing fee and name suppression
I have not awarded the filing fee as the landlord has not been wholly successful in their claim.
As the tenants have been awarded suppression in my order of the 24 June 2025, I continue with their suppression. The landlord has not been fully successful in both its defence of the tenant’s claims and in its own claims and therefore I do not grant the landlord name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5288960 — net $1,660.16 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Garage door drill holes	$40.00		Repairs: Garage door drill holes
Repairs: Dent in sleepout	$142.34		Repairs: Dent in sleepout
Previous order application 5218651 dated 24/06/2025		$1,842.50	Previous order application 5218651 dated 24/06/2025
Total award	$182.34	$1,842.50
Net award		$1,660.16
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,660.16

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord’s claims for damage to the deck, vanity and outdoor drop down and the claim for a replacement garage door remote are not proven and therefore dismissed.
Dequn Zeng must pay [The tenant/s] $1,660.16 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 21 August 2025.
These parties have been the subject of three previous orders. An order dated 24 June 2025 determining the tenant’s claims whereby I awarded the tenant $1842.50, an order striking out some of the landlord’s claims on the 13 August 2025, and an order declining a rehearing application.
The hearing on the 21 August 2025 was to determine the landlord’s remaining claims.
At the hearing on the 21 August both parties sought to relitigate matters that I had already determined. I confirmed both at the hearing and in this decision that once a decision has been made, if the parties are not satisfied with the decision, then they can appeal that decision. They cannot refile a new application or seek to relitigate a determination at a hearing about other claims.
The remaining claims that require determination are the landlord’s claims for: a. Compensation for a garage door remote that was not returned. b. Compensation for damage to the garage door- drill holes. c. Compensation for the cost of repairing the deck. d. Compensation for a dent to the wall in the sleep out. (Paint and plaster) e. Compensation for damage to the vanity. f. Compensation for damage to the outdoor screen.
The parties filed considerable evidence in respect of these claims. I confirm that I have considered all the evidence, both submitted at hearing and on the file before determining these claims. The garage remote
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1
The tenants say that one of the garage door remotes fell apart during the tenancy and was not replaced and that is why they only returned one garage door remote.
I am satisfied that one of the garage door remotes broke due to age, during the tenancy and was not replaced and that is why it was not handed back. I say this because photographs showing the garage door remote at the beginning of the tenancy, show it with tape around it and it was described in the ingoing tenancy inspection report as “old and wear” (sic).
The tenant is not liable for the replacement garage door remote. The law relating to damage.
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 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 2
Fair wear and tear is the decline in the condition of a property due to ordinary, everyday use.
The property has several timber decks. The landlord says that the decking needed repair and replacement due to the tenant using the decks to store wood used in his building business. The landlord also says that there was a small hole in the deck from the legs of a table saw.
Both parties provided me with photographs of the deck. That evidence was very helpful in allowing me to consider the condition of the property at the beginning of, during and at the end of the tenancy.
The condition of the deck deteriorated over the tenancy, but it did so in a way that was as a result of ordinary everyday use. The deck became weathered as all decks do over time. The staining is worn, simply from people walking on the deck and stairs in the usual way.
Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that this damage was fair wear and tear for the following reasons. a. The photographs show the staining is worn in areas simply by people standing/ walking on the decks. This is evident because it is in the usual pattern and pathway of where people would walk or stand on the deck. b. There is no evidence that the storage of the wood on the deck caused any accelerated wear. c. I do not consider that the storage of the timber on the decks for short periods was an unusual use of the deck. People keep firewood and other items stacked on their decks. d. The table timber saw on the deck was no different than an outdoor furniture table being on the deck. It does not appear to put a bigger load on the deck.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the deck is not proven and therefore dismissed. The drill holes in the garage door.
The tenant accepts that the drill holes in the garage door were as a result of the removal of security camera he installed.
The tenant says that the holes could be filled by plugs or screws at a cost of no more than $30.00. 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
When tenants put up pictures, or instal tv brackets or security cameras, they have an obligation to ensure that they make good any damage that they cause, when they leave the property. This means filling holes etc.
I am satisfied that the tenant caused the damage to the garage door by installing a security camera. I consider the reasonable remedy to this would be to bung the holes with screws or plugs.
The landlord has not yet done this work and estimates that the work will cost $300.00. The tenant says that this is excessive, it is an easy job and requires buying 2 plugs/screws and putting them in.
I have allowed $50.00 for this work; this includes materials and the cost of installing them. Paint damage to the wall in the sleepout.
The landlord says that the dent to a wall in the sleepout about the size of a 50 cent coin. The tenant accepts that this damage occurred during the tenancy, probably when moving out. The tenant says it is on a wall with a curtain covering where the damage would be.
The landlord has fixed the wall at their own cost, by plastering and painting over the wall. They seek $142.34 being the cost of materials and work.
I am satisfied that the tenants caused the damage carelessly when moving furniture during the tenancy and are liable for the cost of the repairs, which I consider reasonable for the work involved. The bathroom vanity.
The landlord is seeking the replacement cost of the vanity. It says that the vanity was damaged during the tenancy.
The vanity has become damaged on the veneer on the bath side. The damage is only visible to someone sitting in the bath.
The landlord showed me photographs of the damage. The damage looks like water damage. It is damage most likely caused by water sitting on the vanity surface. This could be from water being splashed from the bath or from condensation.
Both parties took photographs of the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy, but neither had photographs of this side of the vanity.
I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for this damage for the following reasons: a. There was no evidence of what the condition of the panel was at the beginning of the tenancy. b. It appears that the damage has been caused by water, and the bathroom being used in the usual way. There is no rail for a shower curtain between the bath and the vanity. In other words, the damage did not occur because the tenants did not take necessary steps to stop water damage, such as using a shower curtain. c. The landlord accepted that during inspections of the property it never noticed any issue with the vanity. The tenants say they never noticed this damage either. It is unlikely that this damage occurred from a one-off event, rather it appears to be damage caused over time. d. Even if I had considered that the tenants were liable (which I do not). I would not have been satisfied that the vanity needed replacement. The outdoor drop-down screen.
The landlord says that the tenant broke the plastic screen. Both parties had photographs of the screen. The tenants had photographs of the screen at the beginning of the tenancy. It showed a segment of clear plastic screen had become milky and brittle from the sun. This damage is also noted in the ingoing inspection report. The tenants are not liable for this damage.
The tenants had the screen repaired so they could use it by removing the milky portion, this left them with a shorter drop down, but one that was usable. Instead of the drop down going to floor length, it now dropped slightly below the wall. This meant that the screen was still able to be used (and in fact was better because it was now see-through and not brittle). It was still fully functional. Set off of landlord’s awards against amount awarded to tenant on the 24 June.
I have set off the amount awarded to the landlord against the amount awarded to the tenant in my decision of the 24 June 2025. To be clear for enforcement purposes the landlord must pay the tenant the amount of $1,660.16. Filing fee and name suppression
I have not awarded the filing fee as the landlord has not been wholly successful in their claim.
As the tenants have been awarded suppression in my order of the 24 June 2025, I continue with their suppression. The landlord has not been fully successful in both its defence of the tenant’s claims and in its own claims and therefore I do not grant the landlord name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288960 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288960 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions