What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5293503 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 5293503?

Replace Cook Top: $120.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5293503?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5293503?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12543939-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5293503 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 5293503?

Replace Cook Top: $120.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5293503?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5293503?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12543939-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5293503 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5293503 — net $120.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace cook top	$120.00	y useful lifespan. Taking those factors into account, I order the tenant to pay $120.00 to the landlord.
Net award	$120.00
Bond	$268.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$120.00

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] to pay Djiw Property Management Limited T/A Pukeko Rental Managers As Agent For Merissa Santoso $120.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $268.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Djiw Property Management Limited T/A Pukeko Rental Managers As Agent For Merissa Santoso: $120.00 [The tenant/s]: $148.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties had previously agreed on the partial release of the bond to the landlord for other claims by the landlord. A balance of $268.00 remains with the Bond Centre. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” Body Corporate breach claims
The premises are part of a unit title. The tenancy agreement includes the requirements set out in the body corporate rules. The rules entitle the body corporate to issue breach “fines” for breaches of those rules.
The body corporate has issued a breach notice for vandalism that it says occurred in the foyer to the premises. Photographs were provided by the landlord in support of the claim. The photographs show two people in the foyer to the premises. The landlord says that one of the people in the foyer has damaged a sign and the reception counter. The photographs do not make the faces of the people in reception clear.
The tenant’s evidence was simply that he was not either of the people shown in the photograph.
The burden of proving the claim is on the landlord. I am not satisfied on the evidence provided, that the landlord that has proven that it was more likely than not that the people in the photographs were the tenant and or his guest. The claim is dismissed.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The landlord says that a cook top was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord confirmed that the cook top had not been damaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord provided a photograph of the damaged cook top which showed a crack on the bottom left hand corner. The cook top was replaced. The landlord provided an invoice for the replacement and the sum of $326.75.
The tenant said that there was a hairline crack in the cook top at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant said that he had informed the landlord of the damage during the course of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Taking those factors into account, I order the tenant to pay $120.00 to the landlord.
The landlord says that the tenant has intentionally damaged an elevator at the premises. The landlord provided evidence that the tenant had entered the building at approximately 12.07 am on 18 May 2025. The landlord provided photos of the tenant in the elevator on the premises. This is a 26 level building with three elevators.
The body corporate building manager (who did not attend the hearing) said in a written statement that the photos clearly showed the tenant vandalising the lift.
The lift was damaged that evening and a contractor was required to complete repairs at the end of the weekend.
I have taken the time to closely consider all of the photos provided of the landlord which show the tenant in the lift. Despite the body corporate building manager’s assertion that the photos clearly show the tenant vandalising the lift, I am unable to see any photo which shows the tenant vandalising the lift. The photos show the tenant standing in the lift.
The damage occurred in an area available to all residents of a large building. Hundreds of people reside in the building. It was the tenant’s evidence that in his experience, having lived at the building for more than two years, that the lifts are regularly out of order.
Given that the damage has occurred in an area available to all residents, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that it is more likely than not that the damage was caused by the tenant. The application is dismissed.
The landlord has applied for release of the filing fee. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this claim and the application for release is dismissed full
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed. The tenant has been substantially successful in this hearing and the tenant’s application for name suppression is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5293503 — net $120.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace cook top	$120.00	y useful lifespan. Taking those factors into account, I order the tenant to pay $120.00 to the landlord.
Net award	$120.00
Bond	$268.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$120.00

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] to pay Djiw Property Management Limited T/A Pukeko Rental Managers As Agent For Merissa Santoso $120.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $268.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Djiw Property Management Limited T/A Pukeko Rental Managers As Agent For Merissa Santoso: $120.00 [The tenant/s]: $148.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties had previously agreed on the partial release of the bond to the landlord for other claims by the landlord. A balance of $268.00 remains with the Bond Centre. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” Body Corporate breach claims
The premises are part of a unit title. The tenancy agreement includes the requirements set out in the body corporate rules. The rules entitle the body corporate to issue breach “fines” for breaches of those rules.
The body corporate has issued a breach notice for vandalism that it says occurred in the foyer to the premises. Photographs were provided by the landlord in support of the claim. The photographs show two people in the foyer to the premises. The landlord says that one of the people in the foyer has damaged a sign and the reception counter. The photographs do not make the faces of the people in reception clear.
The tenant’s evidence was simply that he was not either of the people shown in the photograph.
The burden of proving the claim is on the landlord. I am not satisfied on the evidence provided, that the landlord that has proven that it was more likely than not that the people in the photographs were the tenant and or his guest. The claim is dismissed.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The landlord says that a cook top was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord confirmed that the cook top had not been damaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord provided a photograph of the damaged cook top which showed a crack on the bottom left hand corner. The cook top was replaced. The landlord provided an invoice for the replacement and the sum of $326.75.
The tenant said that there was a hairline crack in the cook top at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant said that he had informed the landlord of the damage during the course of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Taking those factors into account, I order the tenant to pay $120.00 to the landlord.
The landlord says that the tenant has intentionally damaged an elevator at the premises. The landlord provided evidence that the tenant had entered the building at approximately 12.07 am on 18 May 2025. The landlord provided photos of the tenant in the elevator on the premises. This is a 26 level building with three elevators.
The body corporate building manager (who did not attend the hearing) said in a written statement that the photos clearly showed the tenant vandalising the lift.
The lift was damaged that evening and a contractor was required to complete repairs at the end of the weekend.
I have taken the time to closely consider all of the photos provided of the landlord which show the tenant in the lift. Despite the body corporate building manager’s assertion that the photos clearly show the tenant vandalising the lift, I am unable to see any photo which shows the tenant vandalising the lift. The photos show the tenant standing in the lift.
The damage occurred in an area available to all residents of a large building. Hundreds of people reside in the building. It was the tenant’s evidence that in his experience, having lived at the building for more than two years, that the lifts are regularly out of order.
Given that the damage has occurred in an area available to all residents, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that it is more likely than not that the damage was caused by the tenant. The application is dismissed.
The landlord has applied for release of the filing fee. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this claim and the application for release is dismissed full
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed. The tenant has been substantially successful in this hearing and the tenant’s application for name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5293503 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5293503 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions