What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5294843 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 5294843?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5294843?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5294843?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12504823-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5294843 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 5294843?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5294843?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5294843?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12504823-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5294843 — Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 29 September 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 3 February 2024 and ended on 4 May 2025.
The tenanted premises are a modern 3 level home. The premises are three years old. Of significance in this hearing, is that the premises contain a small lift going from the ground floor to the top level.
The current landlord applicant purchased the premises at mortgagee sale. The sale settled on 27 March 2025.
The landlord filed her claim with Tenancy Services on 17 July 2025. The landlord seeks compensation for damages to the lift in the sum of $5,524.00. 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.”

Are the tenants 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. The landlord is not insured for the damage claimed. The parties accept that any damage which occurred, had occurred prior to the landlord settling the purchase of the premises.
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. Landlord’s evidence
The landlord said that the lift was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord initially became aware of an issue with the lift whilst attending an open home prior to purchasing the premises. The landlord said that while she was viewing the premises, she spoke to one of the tenants. The tenant said that they had overloaded the lift and that it was not working as a result.
The landlord purchased the premises. Once settlement had occurred, the landlord arranged for an appropriate contractor to come and repair the lift.
The contractor said that the damage was as bad as he had seen in his experience. The lift belts had been stripped. He said that belts should with normal use last 10 years. The work required would be a major repair, not just a reset. This proved correct, as the landlord provided an invoice for the repairs in the sum of $5,524.00. Tenants’ evidence
The tenants said that when they first viewed the house in January 2024, prior to the commencement of the tenancy, the lift was not working.
The lift was repaired on 6 February 2024. It stopped working again sometime in August 2024.
Four people were in the lift when it stopped working. The combined weight of the four people in the lift did not exceed 300 kg. Evidence was provided by the tenants to support this.
The tenants said that during their tenancy, there was never more than 300 kg in the lift, whether that be people or otherwise
They said that there had been people living in the premises prior to the commencement of their tenancy. They did not know if this had been the owners or other tenants.
The service records provided for the lift do not contain dates when the service was actually carried out, which would have been helpful to the Tribunal in considering this matter. The tenants said that other than the repair referred to previously in this order, the lift was not serviced at all during the course of their tenancy.
The burden of proving that the damage occurred during the course of this tenancy is on the landlord. I am not persuaded on the evidence presented that that it is more likely than not that the damage claimed occurred during the course of this tenancy. The tenants gave evidence that the lift was faulty before they moved into the premises. It is just as likely that any damage to it occurred during the previous tenancy.
The application is dismissed.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed. The tenants have been wholly successful in this hearing and suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 29 September 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 3 February 2024 and ended on 4 May 2025.
The tenanted premises are a modern 3 level home. The premises are three years old. Of significance in this hearing, is that the premises contain a small lift going from the ground floor to the top level.
The current landlord applicant purchased the premises at mortgagee sale. The sale settled on 27 March 2025.
The landlord filed her claim with Tenancy Services on 17 July 2025. The landlord seeks compensation for damages to the lift in the sum of $5,524.00. 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.”

Are the tenants 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. The landlord is not insured for the damage claimed. The parties accept that any damage which occurred, had occurred prior to the landlord settling the purchase of the premises.
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. Landlord’s evidence
The landlord said that the lift was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord initially became aware of an issue with the lift whilst attending an open home prior to purchasing the premises. The landlord said that while she was viewing the premises, she spoke to one of the tenants. The tenant said that they had overloaded the lift and that it was not working as a result.
The landlord purchased the premises. Once settlement had occurred, the landlord arranged for an appropriate contractor to come and repair the lift.
The contractor said that the damage was as bad as he had seen in his experience. The lift belts had been stripped. He said that belts should with normal use last 10 years. The work required would be a major repair, not just a reset. This proved correct, as the landlord provided an invoice for the repairs in the sum of $5,524.00. Tenants’ evidence
The tenants said that when they first viewed the house in January 2024, prior to the commencement of the tenancy, the lift was not working.
The lift was repaired on 6 February 2024. It stopped working again sometime in August 2024.
Four people were in the lift when it stopped working. The combined weight of the four people in the lift did not exceed 300 kg. Evidence was provided by the tenants to support this.
The tenants said that during their tenancy, there was never more than 300 kg in the lift, whether that be people or otherwise
They said that there had been people living in the premises prior to the commencement of their tenancy. They did not know if this had been the owners or other tenants.
The service records provided for the lift do not contain dates when the service was actually carried out, which would have been helpful to the Tribunal in considering this matter. The tenants said that other than the repair referred to previously in this order, the lift was not serviced at all during the course of their tenancy.
The burden of proving that the damage occurred during the course of this tenancy is on the landlord. I am not persuaded on the evidence presented that that it is more likely than not that the damage claimed occurred during the course of this tenancy. The tenants gave evidence that the lift was faulty before they moved into the premises. It is just as likely that any damage to it occurred during the previous tenancy.
The application is dismissed.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed. The tenants have been wholly successful in this hearing and suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5294843 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5294843 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions