What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5292882 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 5292882?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5292882?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5292882?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12379714-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5292882 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 5292882?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5292882?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5292882?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12379714-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5292882 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5292882 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$3,680.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5292882 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$3,680.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Edwards Realty Limited As Agent For Damian And Charlotte Tegg must pay [Tenant’s name suppressed] $27.00 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant applied for reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 claims the following damage was caused by the tenant’s careless acts or omissions, and/or the careless acts or omissions of other persons at the property with the tenants consent, during the tenancy: a. A broken power point by the pool that had been taped up and was not working; and b. Marks on the lounge ceiling that required the ceiling to be repainted; c. A broken floodlight/sensor in the rumpus room that required fixing; and d. A broken cat door that needed replacing and installing.
The landlord states this damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant denies responsibility for any of the damages claimed by the landlord. Pool Power point
The landlord claims the tenant broke the power point by the pool and taped it up and should be responsible for the cost of fixing it.
The landlord produced exit inspection photographs that sowed the taped-up power point but was unable to produce clear photographs of the power point at the start of the tenancy. The photographs from the entry inspection were taken from a distance and are not sufficient to prove the power point had no damage to it nor that it had been tested and was working.
The landlord has failed to prove its claim on the balance of probabilities because of this lack of evidence. The claim is dismissed. Lounge Ceiling
The landlord says the tenant used the brown paint it found at the premise to paint patches of the ceiling in the lounge, requiring the ceiling needing to be repainted. The landlord confirmed the ceiling were last painted in January 2021, four and a half years ago. Ceiling paint in a high traffic area usually lasts between 5 to 10 years, depending on the quality of the original paint and how it was applied.
The photographs of the ceiling taken by the property manager on 28 May 2025 during the exit inspection do not show any such paint marks and no comments are made about these alleged paint marks in the property inspection report.
Photographs taken by the owners on 5 June 2025 show some yellowish stains/smudge marks that appear to me to be the result of someone trying to wipe parts of the ceiling with a cloth.
The tenant confirms she did use baby wipes to gently wipe the ceiling in a few places with baby wipes around the lights to remove fly excrement. Baby wipes are soft and do not usually damage paint if used gently.
I am satisfied that the tenant has proven the paint she purchased was brown and was mixed to match the colour of the paint in the bedroom, so she could touch up the paint where there were some minor holes. I do not accept the paint mixture in the tin photographed by the landlord was white, nor that it was paint used by the tenant to cause the yellowish fade marks/stains on the ceiling.
I am also not satisfied that the wipe marks were not caused by other persons trying to clean the ceiling between the final exit inspection on 28 May 2025 and the date of the owners photographs on 5 June 2025.
I find the landlord has failed to prove its claim on the balance of probabilities because of lack of evidence that proves the damage was caused by the tenant painting parts of the ceiling and that the paint marks were evident during the exit inspection immediately following the end of the tenancy. The claim is dismissed. Rumpus Room Floodlight/sensor
The landlord claims the tenant broke the floodlight/sensor in the rumpus room and produced before and after tenancy photographs to prove part of the light was knocked off and needed repairing.
The tenant says the light was working when the tenancy ended, but that it had always flickered on and off for the duration of the tenancy, so she and her son had not used it.
The tenant says the light could have been knocked by the plastic blind that was near it when it was used normally. The landlord agree that this could have been the cause of the light being damaged.
I find that the photographic and oral evidence of the parties proves, on the balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not that the blind knocked the light fitting and that it was not the tenant careless use of the blind or light that caused the damage. Accordingly, I find this damage is fair wear and tear and dismiss the landlord’s claim accordingly. Cat door
The landlord produced entry and exit inspection photographs of the cat door and claims the cat door was cracked by the tenant during the tenancy due to her careless acts or omissions and that she should be held liable for the purchase of a new cat door and its installation. The landlord confirmed the car door was installed by the owners around 202 for use by their cat and that the first tenant after the owners moved out of the premise had multiple cats.
The tenant states that she did not have a cat living at the premise and that her dog was too large to try to make use of the cat door and did not try to do so. Further, she stated that the cat door was not secured into the frame very well and consequently it slide around when the door was opened or closed. The tenant says when it did move around, she would return it back to its original position.
A standard plastic cat door typically lasts 5 to 7 years, though this can vary significantly based on material quality and environmental factors like intense sunlight and harsh weather, which can cause the plastic to become brittle and degrade faster. Frequent use by multiple cats, especially if they are rough with the door, will also shorten its lifespan. Additionally, improper installation can also lead to instability and faster degradation of a cat door.
The tenant asserts that all three of these factors led to the degeneration of the cat door, being: a. Direct exposure to sunlight over a period of 5 years leading to cracks and faster wear; b. The cat door having been used by the previous, tenant’s multiple cats having caused some wear and tear on it; and c. Improper installation leading to instability and faster degradation of the door leading to it moving around and consequently cracking.
I accept the tenant’s aforementioned explanations as convincing reasons that the crack should be considered fair wear and tear on the cat door. Her photographs show the cat door has moved around because it was not secure and the age of the door and is location also support it being more likely than not that there was some environmental degradation to the cat door. For these reasons, I find that on the balance of probabilities the tenant cannot be held liable for the brittle cat door cracking and dismiss the landlord’s claim accordingly. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with her claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
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.
The tenant has wholly succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.
Because Edwards Realty Limited As Agent For Damian And Charlotte Tegg has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claims, I dismiss its claim for name suppression.
I consider that publication of the landlord’s name is in the public interest or is justified because of the owners conduct in relation to the claims they have made a full week after the property manager’s final inspection was sent to the tenant that makes no mention of the issues that gave rise to the claims in these proceedings. In the 7 days, post the final exit inspection undertaken by the property managers, the tenant had no control over who entered the premises or what was done to it. The landlord’s inability to prove the causal links between the tenancy and the damages complained of were of concern to me, especially given the lengthy period between what appeared on the face of it from the exit inspection to be very few concerns and the claims brought to the Tribunal. It is in the public interest potential tenants are aware of the risk of the owners of this property to make these types of alligators that are inconsistent with the final exit inspection carried out by professional property managers, especially when there is no convincing evidence to support the claims being made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5292882 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5292882 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions