What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5294600 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 5294600?

Blue Recycle Bin: $19.30 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of amenity 6 mont…: $480.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $219.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Owing: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Blinds And Curtains: $321.25 awarded to landlord; Doors Skirting Paint And Patching: $499.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5294600?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5294600?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12457019-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5294600 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 5294600?

Blue Recycle Bin: $19.30 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of amenity 6 mont…: $480.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $219.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Owing: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Blinds And Curtains: $321.25 awarded to landlord; Doors Skirting Paint And Patching: $499.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5294600?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5294600?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12457019-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

8 Sutherland Court, Flagstaff, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5294600 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

8 Sutherland Court, Flagstaff, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5294600 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5294600 — net $1,528.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent owing to 26 May 2025	$900.00		Rent owing to 26 May 2025
Water leak insurance excess	$550.00		Water leak insurance excess
Repairs: Blinds and curtains	$321.25		Repairs: Blinds and curtains
Repairs: Doors skirting paint and patching	$499.00		Repairs: Doors skirting paint and patching
Carpet repairs	$219.00		Carpet repairs
Blue recycle bin	$19.30		Blue recycle bin
Compensation: loss of amenity 6 months shower		$480.00	loss of amenity 6 months shower
Compensation: Failure to maintain		$500.00	Failure to maintain
Total award	$2,508.55	$980.00
Net award	$1,528.55
Bond	$2,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,528.55

Claims and awards for application 5294600 — net $1,528.55 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent owing to 26 May 2025

Amount: $900.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent owing to 26 May 2025

Water leak insurance excess

Amount: $550.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water leak insurance excess

Repairs: Blinds and curtains

Amount: $321.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Blinds and curtains

Repairs: Doors skirting paint and patching

Amount: $499.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Doors skirting paint and patching

Carpet repairs

Amount: $219.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet repairs

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Utrust Property Management Limited As Agent For Dunyun Liu $1,088.55 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Utrust Property Management Limited As Agent For Dunyun Liu: $1,088.55 [The tenant/s]: $1,791.45

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filling fee.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 21 August 2021.The landlord issued a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy on 16 June. As part of this notice the landlords advised the tenants that they could end the tenancy earlier by giving 21 days’ notice.
The tenants found a new premises and on 6 May 2025 issued a 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy on 26th of May 2025.
The tenancy agreement allowed for a maximum of seven tenants and the tenants were allowed a dog and a cat.
The tenants raised maintenance issues during the tenancy, specifically about their inability to use the main shower due to leaks and subsequent mould growth after silicon was used to repair the bottom of it. The tenants also had troubles with the ensuite shower where the top rail that held the door in place had come away making it hard to close properly. They had attempted to fix the top themselves.
The ensuite shower had become the main shower due to the problems and they stopped using the main shower for about 6 months. Failure to maintain.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant sought compensation for the inability to use the main shower for six months and a breach because the landlord did not maintain the showers.
The breach of this section will be considered then the compensation award.
On 19 June 2022 the tenants emailed the landlord that the shower in main bathroom water strip needs repair because it ‘leaks everywhere’.
The landlord agreed that they knew about the problems with the silicon and seal in the main shower.
They disputed that the ensuite shower leak was caused because of the failure of the doors to shut properly.
The landlord organised for a repair of the main shower after the tenants notified them of the issue on 4th of July 2022. The landlord first attempted to fix this by sending a friend around however the problem continued and a plumber was then employed. The tenants said the only repair completed was to silicone around the bottom of it.
The tenants said that the plastic seal was not on the bottom of the shower and this caused it to leak.
On 22 June 2022 the landlords emailed the tenants that ‘For the shower box the bottom seal is not easy to buy, our contractor has went to bunnings several times to look for the right one but still cannot find it. I am not professional in this area just the handyman told me the seal is different from others. The landlord is happy to replace it but the handyman cannot find it the seal.’
On 4 December 2024 the tenants alerted the landlord to a leak in the main bathroom after they noticed damp carpet in a cupboard that backed onto the shower and damp walls. The tenants did not dispute that the landlord attended to this leak on the same day, however they said that the only thing that happened was that the base was re-silicone. The carpet and affected wall were not replaced or dried. The tenants dried the carpet and wall themselves.
The tenant said that after this repair the black mould started growing in the silicone around the bottom of the shower.
The tenant said that the leak was never fixed, and seal not replaced they stopped using the shower for the last six months of the tenancy. When the tenancy ended neither of the showers had been repaired and the black mould was still an issue.
The tenants provided photographs of the damaged top rails for the landlord on 22 October 2022.These rails ensured that the doors closed properly in the shower preventing leaks.
The landlord failed to maintain the showers at the premises. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the landlord was aware of the problems that the tenant was having and never properly repaired them. The tenant was relied on to maintain and fix some issues that were the landlords responsibility. The landlord should know and comply with the requirements of the RTA. I find it just to make an award of $500.00
The tenant sought compensation for not being able to use the main bathroom for 6 months. In a premises with 7 people this was an inconvenience and a loss of the ability to use something that they were paying rent for. I award compensation of $480.00 being $20 a week for 6 months. Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord scheduled viewings for prospective tenants after the tenants gave 21 days notice to end the tenancy. The tenant refused viewings because they believed that it was not safe for members of the public to come into the property with packed boxes everywhere and a dog that did not like strangers. They also were under stress dealing with a bereavement of a child’s friend.
The tenant said they ended the tenancy earlier that the 90 day notice issued by the landlord and this gave the landlord more time to show others after they had left.
The tenant was concerned that people had come to the premises to look through after she had not consented to a viewing, and a new tenancy began a week after they had left so there was no detriment to the landlord. Photographs of people coming to open homes that had been cancelled at late notice were provided.
The landlord said ultimately the premises were rented sight unseen because the tenant did not let the viewings happen. They cancelled online information when the tenant emailed them and could not control people who turned up after the viewing was cancelled.
A landlord does have the right of entry into a premises to show prospective tenants, with the prior consent of the tenant. A tenant cannot withhold consent unreasonably.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that there was no intention by the landlord to breach the tenants quiet enjoyment of the premises. They were trying to exercise their rights and ultimately did not have any prospective tenants through the premises. The people coming to the property I find are out of the landlords control.
This claim is dismissed. Landlords claim.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 26 May 2025 and the tenant agreed that they owed one weeks rent being $900.00.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: the glass recycling bin.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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: 1) Damaged blinds and curtains 2) The laundry was damaged due to a water leak 3) Door and skirting board repairs, paint and patching. 4) Carpet damage between two doorways by the cat.
The tenants took responsibility for the carpet and curtain damages. They said the blinds old and brittle, and the door and other marks were fair wear and tear in a premises that was built in 2016 and had 7 people live there for 4 years. An amount has been awarded to recognise that damages had happened but depreciation was considered.
The tenant did not know about the laundry leak. The landlord said it was discovered that the wall in the laundry, and wall in the room next to the laundry had been damaged by a leak that had occurred sometime prior to the end of the tenancy. Repairs were covered by insurance and they sought reimbursement of the excess. Photographs were provided clarifying where the leak was and establishing that the damage occurred during the tenancy and it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenants were unable to explain how it occurred The insurance excess is awarded.
The landlord said that the general damages claim for wall chips and door damages is more than fair wear and tear. Pre and post photographs were provided, and each area was discussed. I find that the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage and award $499.00 for these damages.
It was established that the cat had damaged some carpet and $219.00 is awarded for this repair.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.

Did the tenant fail to allow the landlord entry?

Utrust Property Management Limited As Agent For Dunyun Liu claims the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance, or with the tenants prior consent to show prospective tenants. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is not disputed that the tenant did not allow the landlord into the premises to show prospective tenants through. The question is whether the tenant had a reasonable excuse to deny the landlords entry to the premises.
The Oxford English dictionary defines reasonable as within the limits of what would be rational or sensible to expect.
The facts of the claim need to be considered and actions of the tenants examined considering their circumstances. Were the tenants acting in a fair practical and sensible way when refusing the landlord entry.
There is also the balancing of the landlord’s rights under the RTA to have access to find a new tenant and mitigate the loss of having the premises untenanted.
Was it genuinely inconvenient or as the tenant claims unsafe and too stressful for the family. The tenant claimed it was too dangerous with boxed items everywhere and an unfriendly dog. They were also supporting a bereaved child.
Most people looking through a property would expect signs that tenants were moving out and the tenant and family were living there with boxed up items without any obvious safety risks, a dog can be removed or caged for set viewing times. Helping a family member through a bereavement is a delicate matter and with structured notified inspection times this also could be managed.
It would be sensible to expect that the landlord would be able to have some viewing days before the tenancy ended .
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have considered the tenants intent and the effect on the landlord of the refusal to allow the inspections. The tenants were supporting family members and dealing with stress, the landlord tenanted the premises within a week of the tenancy ending and therefore suffered very little loss. The tenant said that they were not intending to deny all inspections but were open to negotiate them. I am not satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages in this case.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with their claim I grant name suppression as requested.
Both parties were substantially successful with their claims, no filing fees are reimbursed.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5294600 — net $1,528.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent owing to 26 May 2025	$900.00		Rent owing to 26 May 2025
Water leak insurance excess	$550.00		Water leak insurance excess
Repairs: Blinds and curtains	$321.25		Repairs: Blinds and curtains
Repairs: Doors skirting paint and patching	$499.00		Repairs: Doors skirting paint and patching
Carpet repairs	$219.00		Carpet repairs
Blue recycle bin	$19.30		Blue recycle bin
Compensation: loss of amenity 6 months shower		$480.00	loss of amenity 6 months shower
Compensation: Failure to maintain		$500.00	Failure to maintain
Total award	$2,508.55	$980.00
Net award	$1,528.55
Bond	$2,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,528.55

Claims and awards for application 5294600 — net $1,528.55 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent owing to 26 May 2025

Amount: $900.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent owing to 26 May 2025

Water leak insurance excess

Amount: $550.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water leak insurance excess

Repairs: Blinds and curtains

Amount: $321.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Blinds and curtains

Repairs: Doors skirting paint and patching

Amount: $499.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Doors skirting paint and patching

Carpet repairs

Amount: $219.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet repairs

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Utrust Property Management Limited As Agent For Dunyun Liu $1,088.55 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Utrust Property Management Limited As Agent For Dunyun Liu: $1,088.55 [The tenant/s]: $1,791.45

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filling fee.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 21 August 2021.The landlord issued a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy on 16 June. As part of this notice the landlords advised the tenants that they could end the tenancy earlier by giving 21 days’ notice.
The tenants found a new premises and on 6 May 2025 issued a 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy on 26th of May 2025.
The tenancy agreement allowed for a maximum of seven tenants and the tenants were allowed a dog and a cat.
The tenants raised maintenance issues during the tenancy, specifically about their inability to use the main shower due to leaks and subsequent mould growth after silicon was used to repair the bottom of it. The tenants also had troubles with the ensuite shower where the top rail that held the door in place had come away making it hard to close properly. They had attempted to fix the top themselves.
The ensuite shower had become the main shower due to the problems and they stopped using the main shower for about 6 months. Failure to maintain.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant sought compensation for the inability to use the main shower for six months and a breach because the landlord did not maintain the showers.
The breach of this section will be considered then the compensation award.
On 19 June 2022 the tenants emailed the landlord that the shower in main bathroom water strip needs repair because it ‘leaks everywhere’.
The landlord agreed that they knew about the problems with the silicon and seal in the main shower.
They disputed that the ensuite shower leak was caused because of the failure of the doors to shut properly.
The landlord organised for a repair of the main shower after the tenants notified them of the issue on 4th of July 2022. The landlord first attempted to fix this by sending a friend around however the problem continued and a plumber was then employed. The tenants said the only repair completed was to silicone around the bottom of it.
The tenants said that the plastic seal was not on the bottom of the shower and this caused it to leak.
On 22 June 2022 the landlords emailed the tenants that ‘For the shower box the bottom seal is not easy to buy, our contractor has went to bunnings several times to look for the right one but still cannot find it. I am not professional in this area just the handyman told me the seal is different from others. The landlord is happy to replace it but the handyman cannot find it the seal.’
On 4 December 2024 the tenants alerted the landlord to a leak in the main bathroom after they noticed damp carpet in a cupboard that backed onto the shower and damp walls. The tenants did not dispute that the landlord attended to this leak on the same day, however they said that the only thing that happened was that the base was re-silicone. The carpet and affected wall were not replaced or dried. The tenants dried the carpet and wall themselves.
The tenant said that after this repair the black mould started growing in the silicone around the bottom of the shower.
The tenant said that the leak was never fixed, and seal not replaced they stopped using the shower for the last six months of the tenancy. When the tenancy ended neither of the showers had been repaired and the black mould was still an issue.
The tenants provided photographs of the damaged top rails for the landlord on 22 October 2022.These rails ensured that the doors closed properly in the shower preventing leaks.
The landlord failed to maintain the showers at the premises. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the landlord was aware of the problems that the tenant was having and never properly repaired them. The tenant was relied on to maintain and fix some issues that were the landlords responsibility. The landlord should know and comply with the requirements of the RTA. I find it just to make an award of $500.00
The tenant sought compensation for not being able to use the main bathroom for 6 months. In a premises with 7 people this was an inconvenience and a loss of the ability to use something that they were paying rent for. I award compensation of $480.00 being $20 a week for 6 months. Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord scheduled viewings for prospective tenants after the tenants gave 21 days notice to end the tenancy. The tenant refused viewings because they believed that it was not safe for members of the public to come into the property with packed boxes everywhere and a dog that did not like strangers. They also were under stress dealing with a bereavement of a child’s friend.
The tenant said they ended the tenancy earlier that the 90 day notice issued by the landlord and this gave the landlord more time to show others after they had left.
The tenant was concerned that people had come to the premises to look through after she had not consented to a viewing, and a new tenancy began a week after they had left so there was no detriment to the landlord. Photographs of people coming to open homes that had been cancelled at late notice were provided.
The landlord said ultimately the premises were rented sight unseen because the tenant did not let the viewings happen. They cancelled online information when the tenant emailed them and could not control people who turned up after the viewing was cancelled.
A landlord does have the right of entry into a premises to show prospective tenants, with the prior consent of the tenant. A tenant cannot withhold consent unreasonably.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that there was no intention by the landlord to breach the tenants quiet enjoyment of the premises. They were trying to exercise their rights and ultimately did not have any prospective tenants through the premises. The people coming to the property I find are out of the landlords control.
This claim is dismissed. Landlords claim.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 26 May 2025 and the tenant agreed that they owed one weeks rent being $900.00.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: the glass recycling bin.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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: 1) Damaged blinds and curtains 2) The laundry was damaged due to a water leak 3) Door and skirting board repairs, paint and patching. 4) Carpet damage between two doorways by the cat.
The tenants took responsibility for the carpet and curtain damages. They said the blinds old and brittle, and the door and other marks were fair wear and tear in a premises that was built in 2016 and had 7 people live there for 4 years. An amount has been awarded to recognise that damages had happened but depreciation was considered.
The tenant did not know about the laundry leak. The landlord said it was discovered that the wall in the laundry, and wall in the room next to the laundry had been damaged by a leak that had occurred sometime prior to the end of the tenancy. Repairs were covered by insurance and they sought reimbursement of the excess. Photographs were provided clarifying where the leak was and establishing that the damage occurred during the tenancy and it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenants were unable to explain how it occurred The insurance excess is awarded.
The landlord said that the general damages claim for wall chips and door damages is more than fair wear and tear. Pre and post photographs were provided, and each area was discussed. I find that the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage and award $499.00 for these damages.
It was established that the cat had damaged some carpet and $219.00 is awarded for this repair.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.

Did the tenant fail to allow the landlord entry?

Utrust Property Management Limited As Agent For Dunyun Liu claims the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance, or with the tenants prior consent to show prospective tenants. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is not disputed that the tenant did not allow the landlord into the premises to show prospective tenants through. The question is whether the tenant had a reasonable excuse to deny the landlords entry to the premises.
The Oxford English dictionary defines reasonable as within the limits of what would be rational or sensible to expect.
The facts of the claim need to be considered and actions of the tenants examined considering their circumstances. Were the tenants acting in a fair practical and sensible way when refusing the landlord entry.
There is also the balancing of the landlord’s rights under the RTA to have access to find a new tenant and mitigate the loss of having the premises untenanted.
Was it genuinely inconvenient or as the tenant claims unsafe and too stressful for the family. The tenant claimed it was too dangerous with boxed items everywhere and an unfriendly dog. They were also supporting a bereaved child.
Most people looking through a property would expect signs that tenants were moving out and the tenant and family were living there with boxed up items without any obvious safety risks, a dog can be removed or caged for set viewing times. Helping a family member through a bereavement is a delicate matter and with structured notified inspection times this also could be managed.
It would be sensible to expect that the landlord would be able to have some viewing days before the tenancy ended .
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have considered the tenants intent and the effect on the landlord of the refusal to allow the inspections. The tenants were supporting family members and dealing with stress, the landlord tenanted the premises within a week of the tenancy ending and therefore suffered very little loss. The tenant said that they were not intending to deny all inspections but were open to negotiate them. I am not satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages in this case.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with their claim I grant name suppression as requested.
Both parties were substantially successful with their claims, no filing fees are reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5294600 — Property damage at 8 Sutherland Court, Flagstaff, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5294600 — Property damage at 8 Sutherland Court, Flagstaff, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant fail to allow the landlord entry?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant fail to allow the landlord entry?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions