What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5293987 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 5293987?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5293987?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5293987?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12733273-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5293987 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 5293987?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5293987?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5293987?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12733273-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20 Porter Place, Paekakariki 5034 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5293987 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant and his wife lived in the landlord’s house from October 2023 until March 2025. In an order made on 12 September 2025 Adjudicator Kemp found this living arrangement was a residential tenancy and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applied. The matter was set down to hear the tenant’s application for a decision about how much he had to pay for a damaged bench, reimbursement of two rent increases, and the refund of his bond. The bond was not lodged but was retained by the landlord at the end of the tenancy because of the damage to the bench. The questions I have to decide include: • Should the tenant pay for a replacement bench? • Should the landlord refund the rent increases? • Should I allow suppression?

Should the tenant pay for a replacement bench?

The tenant has asked the Tribunal to make a decision about how much he has to pay because his wife damaged the bench during the tenancy.
When it comes to claims for damage landlords 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.
Even though the landlord has not filed her own application the same law applies.
The tenant said his wife burned her hand while she was cooking and, in that moment, allowed a hot pan to rest on the bench. The resulting hole in the surface of the bench is small but it is very noticeable and it is close to the sink. The landlord said she got quotes and the only option was to replace the bench at a cost of around $1,100. She said this repair has been carried out, but she did not have invoices for me at the hearing. She said there was other damage to the bench during the tenancy but this has never been mentioned before in the correspondence between the parties.
I find the damage is more than fair wear and tear. I am not persuaded there was intentional damage. I am not persuaded the tenant’s wife acted without care. This means the tenant is not responsible for the damage.
The landlord must return the bond of $770 to the tenant immediately.

Should the landlord refund the rent increases?

The parties signed an agreement and the weekly rent was recorded as $385. The tenant said the landlord asked for a $10 rent increase three weeks into the tenancy. The landlord replied that she never asked for an extra $10, the tenant just started paying it.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove, which means he must have better evidence than the landlord. There was no paper work supporting his claim the landlord increased the rent. I find the tenant has not proved this claim.
I have been provided with two emails which are relevant to the second claim for the reimbursement of rent. On 28 September 2023, before the tenancy started, the landlord emailed to record an agreement that the amount to be paid for rent and outgoings would be revisited after the tenant’s wife joined him. The tenant replied “Yes I agree with the things we discussed that day.. thank you so much for everything”.
In June 2024 the landlord wrote:
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. He is correct that the RTA allows one rent increase a year. However, at that point in time, neither party knew the RTA applied, the increase was expected, and the tenant paid it. I note the tenant could have given notice and moved out if he thought the rent increase was unfair, but he stayed for another 9 months. I am not persuaded, in the particular circumstances of this case, that the landlord should reimburse the rent.
The claims for reimbursement of rent are dismissed.

Should I allow suppression?

Both parties have made an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because he is the most successful party.
The landlord submitted that it would be unfair if her name is published because it could affect her good name. I have considered that the law relating to boarders/tenants is complicated. However, the fact the landlord might rent the room again means there is public interest in her name and the address of the tenancy premises. I find the landlord’s name should be published. Other matters
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
This was not raised at the hearing but now the landlord knows the RTA applies she should check with the Council that the tenancy premises can be lawfully rented out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant and his wife lived in the landlord’s house from October 2023 until March 2025. In an order made on 12 September 2025 Adjudicator Kemp found this living arrangement was a residential tenancy and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applied. The matter was set down to hear the tenant’s application for a decision about how much he had to pay for a damaged bench, reimbursement of two rent increases, and the refund of his bond. The bond was not lodged but was retained by the landlord at the end of the tenancy because of the damage to the bench. The questions I have to decide include: • Should the tenant pay for a replacement bench? • Should the landlord refund the rent increases? • Should I allow suppression?

Should the tenant pay for a replacement bench?

The tenant has asked the Tribunal to make a decision about how much he has to pay because his wife damaged the bench during the tenancy.

When it comes to claims for damage landlords 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.

Even though the landlord has not filed her own application the same law applies.

The tenant said his wife burned her hand while she was cooking and, in that moment, allowed a hot pan to rest on the bench. The resulting hole in the surface of the bench is small but it is very noticeable and it is close to the sink. The landlord said she got quotes and the only option was to replace the bench at a cost of around $1,100. She said this repair has been carried out, but she did not have invoices for me at the hearing. She said there was other damage to the bench during the tenancy but this has never been mentioned before in the correspondence between the parties.

I find the damage is more than fair wear and tear. I am not persuaded there was intentional damage. I am not persuaded the tenant’s wife acted without care. This means the tenant is not responsible for the damage.

The landlord must return the bond of $770 to the tenant immediately.

Should the landlord refund the rent increases?

The parties signed an agreement and the weekly rent was recorded as $385. The tenant said the landlord asked for a $10 rent increase three weeks into the tenancy. The landlord replied that she never asked for an extra $10, the tenant just started paying it.

This is the tenant’s claim to prove, which means he must have better evidence than the landlord. There was no paper work supporting his claim the landlord increased the rent. I find the tenant has not proved this claim.

I have been provided with two emails which are relevant to the second claim for the reimbursement of rent. On 28 September 2023, before the tenancy started, the landlord emailed to record an agreement that the amount to be paid for rent and outgoings would be revisited after the tenant’s wife joined him. The tenant replied “Yes I agree with the things we discussed that day.. thank you so much for everything”.

In June 2024 the landlord wrote:

This is the tenant’s claim to prove. He is correct that the RTA allows one rent increase a year. However, at that point in time, neither party knew the RTA applied, the increase was expected, and the tenant paid it. I note the tenant could have given notice and moved out if he thought the rent increase was unfair, but he stayed for another 9 months. I am not persuaded, in the particular circumstances of this case, that the landlord should reimburse the rent.

The claims for reimbursement of rent are dismissed.

Should I allow suppression?

Both parties have made an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.

The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because he is the most successful party.

The landlord submitted that it would be unfair if her name is published because it could affect her good name. I have considered that the law relating to boarders/tenants is complicated. However, the fact the landlord might rent the room again means there is public interest in her name and the address of the tenancy premises. I find the landlord’s name should be published. Other matters

Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

This was not raised at the hearing but now the landlord knows the RTA applies she should check with the Council that the tenancy premises can be lawfully rented out.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5293987 — Tenancy dispute at 20 Porter Place, Paekakariki 5034

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5293987 — Tenancy dispute at 20 Porter Place, Paekakariki 5034

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenant pay for a replacement bench?

Should the landlord refund the rent increases?

Should I allow suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenant pay for a replacement bench?

Should the landlord refund the rent increases?

Should I allow suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions