What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5289979 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 5289979?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Less: Payment From Insurers: $2,610.90 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $7,165.08 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $157.32 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,449.98 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $736.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $257.39 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5289979?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5289979?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12954841-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5289979 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 5289979?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Less: Payment From Insurers: $2,610.90 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $7,165.08 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $157.32 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,449.98 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $736.55 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $257.39 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5289979?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5289979?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12954841-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5289979 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5289979 — net $8,082.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs to walls	$7,165.08		Repairs to walls
Lock/key replacement	$157.32		Lock/key replacement
Carpet replacement	$2,000.00		Carpet replacement
Repairs to hallway floor	$1,449.98		Repairs to hallway floor
Window repairs	$736.55		Window repairs
Repairs to kitchen kickboards	$257.39		Repairs to kitchen kickboards
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Less: payment from insurers		$2,610.90	Less: payment from insurers
Total award	$11,793.32	$2,610.90
Net award	$8,082.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,082.42

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Gary Anthony Joseph Cash and Fiso Joanne Tui must pay [The landlord/s] $8,082.42 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Tribunal directs the Bond Centre to pay the bond to the landlords.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearings in person on 9 October 2025 and by telephone on 18 December 2025. The landlord applied for loss of rent and compensation for damage to the property. The landlord provided additional information on 22 October 2025 and 6 January 2026.
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 8 December 2020 to 8 December 2021. The tenancy continued as a periodic tenancy and ended on 8 March 2025, when the tenants vacated.
The landlord completed repairs to the property in April 2025 and sold the premises in September 2025. A bond of $1,100.00 remains at the Bond Centre. Rent and Outgoings
The landlord claimed rent for four weeks after the end of the tenancy due to its condition.
The landlord did not have another tenant waiting to move in, so it is not clear the premises could have been relet. The tenants left because the landlord requested that they vacate due to the damage being caused. I consider the landlord cannot take advantage of the tenant’s compliance by claiming loss of rent for a further period. The tenants were up to date with the rent on the vacate date.
The landlord claimed $81.24 for power use but did not provide any supporting invoices. Rubbish Removal
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The landlord claimed $943.23 for rubbish removal, as per the repair quote from VM Construction Limited dated 7 March 2025. Some of the photographs taken by the landlord were clearly prior to the tenants leaving. Other photographs which may have been taken after they left do not show any rubbish or belongings left behind. I decline to award this cost.
The landlord had to replace the locks. I award $157.32 for lock replacement, again as per the quote. Damage
In the application form, the landlord claimed the cost of repairs to the property in the sum of $19,114.44. This appears to be based on the VM Construction Limited quote. At the first hearing, the Tribunal was informed that the repairs had been completed, and the actual repair cost was about $40,000.00.
Following the second hearing, the Tribunal was provided with two invoices for renovation works totalling $44,283.06. A scope of works was also produced with the same price. Finally, in written submissions dated 6 January 2026, the landlords clarified that they were claiming $16,183.38 for repair costs. The itemised costs differ from the costs included in the quote and the discrepancy is unexplained.
The landlord provided correspondence with their insurer from August 2025, referring to an “approved repair scope” in a table clarifying the insurance coverage and application of the excess. At the first hearing, the landlord said they had not been paid by their insurer. In their final written submissions dated 6 January 2026, the landlords acknowledged an insurance payment of $2,610.90.
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.
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. The insurance excess was $500.00, and the weekly rent was $660.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent.
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.
There was damage to internal walls, the exterior cladding, the kitchen flooring, and the carpets at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s photographs show wall damage with patch repairs, loose, frayed, and stained carpet, and damage to the kitchen flooring and the bottom of kitchen cabinets. There was also a large hole in the hallway floor.
The landlord confirmed that they were not claiming the cost of renovation, but the cost of repairing the damage caused by the tenant. The 7 March 2025 quote appears to be focussed on the cost of repairing tenant damage. I have treated this as the more reliable evidential basis for assessing the reasonable cost of repair.
The quote included $6,230.50 plus GST for wall repairs and $6,238.00 plus GST for carpet replacement. The breakdown provided by the landlord claimed $4,887.50 for the carpet and did not itemise any wall damage. Instead, $2,587.50 was claimed for joinery damage. Insurers did not accept the joinery claim, describing it as “unvalidated”. The claim for replacement window latches ($85.00 plus GST) in the quote was not supported by any other evidence.
Insurers declined cover for the wall damage, presumably on the basis that it was intentional. The visible damage is quite extensive and goes beyond the kind of scrapes and marks which could be construed as wear and tear or carelessly caused damage. Some areas of damage are consistent with repeated scratching and other areas including patched repairs could have been intentional. The description provided by insurers was: “Punch holes / graffiti / patched areas / paint peel and paint chip throughout”. I find that the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage to the walls. I award the full repair cost for the walls and decline to award the cost of repairs to joinery.
The landlord did not know the age of the carpet. The insurance information suggests insurers accepted that this loss was covered and a total of four excesses would have been applied to the carpet claim. The carpet is shown in poor condition in the landlord’s photographs. The only evidence of the carpet’s condition at the start of the tenancy is the property inspection report in the tenancy agreement, which does not identify any issues. I accept that the carpet would at least have had a few more years of useful life. Applying the insurance excesses, I award $2,000.00 for carpet replacement.
There was damage to the kitchen floor, which was tiled. There were several small marks visible in the photographs, in different places. It is unclear whether this meant that the entire floor needed to be replaced. The cost is not included in the quote and does not appear to have been assessed by insurers. I decline to award the cost claimed by the landlord ($2,953.50 plus GST) which does not seem to be supported by any quotes or invoices. There was also damage to the kitchen kickboards. This is referred to in the quote and I award the quoted amount ($257.39).
One of the photographs showed a large square hole in the hallway flooring at the entrance to the kitchen. There is also a photograph showing a square- shaped sunken area of floor under the carpet. It looks like the flooring collapsed during the tenancy. In the absence of an explanation from the tenants, I find that they have not disproved liability for the floor damage. Based on the quote, the cost of repair was $1,449.98. I award this amount.
A window was broken as shown in the landlord’s photographs. I award $640.00 plus GST ($736.55) as per the quote.
The landlord claimed $985.60 for damage to the exterior cladding. There is a photograph showing a tear to a panel next to the driveway, close to ground level. It is unclear how this damage happened and whether it was pre-existing or caused by the tenant. I decline to award this cost. Filing Fee and Suppression
The landlord’s application has succeeded. The filing fee must be awarded.
The landlord is granted name suppression as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5289979 — net $8,082.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs to walls	$7,165.08		Repairs to walls
Lock/key replacement	$157.32		Lock/key replacement
Carpet replacement	$2,000.00		Carpet replacement
Repairs to hallway floor	$1,449.98		Repairs to hallway floor
Window repairs	$736.55		Window repairs
Repairs to kitchen kickboards	$257.39		Repairs to kitchen kickboards
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Less: payment from insurers		$2,610.90	Less: payment from insurers
Total award	$11,793.32	$2,610.90
Net award	$8,082.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,082.42

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Gary Anthony Joseph Cash and Fiso Joanne Tui must pay [The landlord/s] $8,082.42 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Tribunal directs the Bond Centre to pay the bond to the landlords.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearings in person on 9 October 2025 and by telephone on 18 December 2025. The landlord applied for loss of rent and compensation for damage to the property. The landlord provided additional information on 22 October 2025 and 6 January 2026.
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 8 December 2020 to 8 December 2021. The tenancy continued as a periodic tenancy and ended on 8 March 2025, when the tenants vacated.
The landlord completed repairs to the property in April 2025 and sold the premises in September 2025. A bond of $1,100.00 remains at the Bond Centre. Rent and Outgoings
The landlord claimed rent for four weeks after the end of the tenancy due to its condition.
The landlord did not have another tenant waiting to move in, so it is not clear the premises could have been relet. The tenants left because the landlord requested that they vacate due to the damage being caused. I consider the landlord cannot take advantage of the tenant’s compliance by claiming loss of rent for a further period. The tenants were up to date with the rent on the vacate date.
The landlord claimed $81.24 for power use but did not provide any supporting invoices. Rubbish Removal
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The landlord claimed $943.23 for rubbish removal, as per the repair quote from VM Construction Limited dated 7 March 2025. Some of the photographs taken by the landlord were clearly prior to the tenants leaving. Other photographs which may have been taken after they left do not show any rubbish or belongings left behind. I decline to award this cost.
The landlord had to replace the locks. I award $157.32 for lock replacement, again as per the quote. Damage
In the application form, the landlord claimed the cost of repairs to the property in the sum of $19,114.44. This appears to be based on the VM Construction Limited quote. At the first hearing, the Tribunal was informed that the repairs had been completed, and the actual repair cost was about $40,000.00.
Following the second hearing, the Tribunal was provided with two invoices for renovation works totalling $44,283.06. A scope of works was also produced with the same price. Finally, in written submissions dated 6 January 2026, the landlords clarified that they were claiming $16,183.38 for repair costs. The itemised costs differ from the costs included in the quote and the discrepancy is unexplained.
The landlord provided correspondence with their insurer from August 2025, referring to an “approved repair scope” in a table clarifying the insurance coverage and application of the excess. At the first hearing, the landlord said they had not been paid by their insurer. In their final written submissions dated 6 January 2026, the landlords acknowledged an insurance payment of $2,610.90.
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.
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. The insurance excess was $500.00, and the weekly rent was $660.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent.
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.
There was damage to internal walls, the exterior cladding, the kitchen flooring, and the carpets at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s photographs show wall damage with patch repairs, loose, frayed, and stained carpet, and damage to the kitchen flooring and the bottom of kitchen cabinets. There was also a large hole in the hallway floor.
The landlord confirmed that they were not claiming the cost of renovation, but the cost of repairing the damage caused by the tenant. The 7 March 2025 quote appears to be focussed on the cost of repairing tenant damage. I have treated this as the more reliable evidential basis for assessing the reasonable cost of repair.
The quote included $6,230.50 plus GST for wall repairs and $6,238.00 plus GST for carpet replacement. The breakdown provided by the landlord claimed $4,887.50 for the carpet and did not itemise any wall damage. Instead, $2,587.50 was claimed for joinery damage. Insurers did not accept the joinery claim, describing it as “unvalidated”. The claim for replacement window latches ($85.00 plus GST) in the quote was not supported by any other evidence.
Insurers declined cover for the wall damage, presumably on the basis that it was intentional. The visible damage is quite extensive and goes beyond the kind of scrapes and marks which could be construed as wear and tear or carelessly caused damage. Some areas of damage are consistent with repeated scratching and other areas including patched repairs could have been intentional. The description provided by insurers was: “Punch holes / graffiti / patched areas / paint peel and paint chip throughout”. I find that the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage to the walls. I award the full repair cost for the walls and decline to award the cost of repairs to joinery.
The landlord did not know the age of the carpet. The insurance information suggests insurers accepted that this loss was covered and a total of four excesses would have been applied to the carpet claim. The carpet is shown in poor condition in the landlord’s photographs. The only evidence of the carpet’s condition at the start of the tenancy is the property inspection report in the tenancy agreement, which does not identify any issues. I accept that the carpet would at least have had a few more years of useful life. Applying the insurance excesses, I award $2,000.00 for carpet replacement.
There was damage to the kitchen floor, which was tiled. There were several small marks visible in the photographs, in different places. It is unclear whether this meant that the entire floor needed to be replaced. The cost is not included in the quote and does not appear to have been assessed by insurers. I decline to award the cost claimed by the landlord ($2,953.50 plus GST) which does not seem to be supported by any quotes or invoices. There was also damage to the kitchen kickboards. This is referred to in the quote and I award the quoted amount ($257.39).
One of the photographs showed a large square hole in the hallway flooring at the entrance to the kitchen. There is also a photograph showing a square- shaped sunken area of floor under the carpet. It looks like the flooring collapsed during the tenancy. In the absence of an explanation from the tenants, I find that they have not disproved liability for the floor damage. Based on the quote, the cost of repair was $1,449.98. I award this amount.
A window was broken as shown in the landlord’s photographs. I award $640.00 plus GST ($736.55) as per the quote.
The landlord claimed $985.60 for damage to the exterior cladding. There is a photograph showing a tear to a panel next to the driveway, close to ground level. It is unclear how this damage happened and whether it was pre-existing or caused by the tenant. I decline to award this cost. Filing Fee and Suppression
The landlord’s application has succeeded. The filing fee must be awarded.
The landlord is granted name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5289979 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5289979 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions