How much money was awarded in case 5304252?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $218.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304252?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304252?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12414895-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5304252?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $218.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304252?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304252?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12414895-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 602, 21 King Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5304252 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5304252 — net $746.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven knob repair	$218.05	Oven knob repair
Bench laminate damage	$500.00	Bench laminate damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	17. I consider it is fair to both parties to order the tenants to pay the landlord $500.00 for the cosmetic damage and for a localised repair.
Net award	$746.05
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$746.05

Order

1 [The party] and [The party] must immediately pay NPS Trust Limited $746.05, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Oven knob repair$218.05 Bench laminate damage$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$746.05

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams.
Nayan Chauhan and Bhupendra Chauhan attended the hearing. 1 This order amends the original order dated 11 September by ordering the tenants to pay the landlord directly rather than from the bond as the Tribunal originally ordered because the bond had already been paid out to the tenants.
The tenants did not attend the hearing, which proceeded in their absence. The tenants did however email the Tribunal on 4 September 2025 to explain their probable absence from the hearing and to make written submissions. I have considered the tenants’ emails.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to the premises’ oven and stove, reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
When the tenancy ended, during the move-out inspection the landlord noticed that the tenant had glued on an oven knob, which had seized the knob so that the oven could not be used. The tenants accepted they were liable for the cost to repair the over.
The landlord did not, however, notice that the laminate behind the stove had been damaged. The landlord provided a photo of the area, which shows apparent heat damage adjacent to the stove’s rear elements.
The landlord submits that the tenants must have careless caused the damage: Repairs to the kitchen bench top - carelessness/negligence from the tenants when using the kitchen stove has resulted in burn marks and bubbling to the rear of the stove, likely from applying heat via pots and pans to the back of the bench top causing the laminate to burn and bubble. Due to the nature of the surface, a repair isn't possible to the area impacted and a full kitchen bench top replacement is necessary. We are seeking full costs from the tenant to allow us to proceed with the repair. This is a 2.5 year old property, with the tenants the only occupants when the damage was noted. A pre photo has been supplied to confirm this damage didn't exist pre tenancy and a builders response has been provided to confirm this isn't wear and tear. The tenant refuses to take responsibility for this damage.
The tenants do not accept the landlord’s claim. They say: If the mark was visible, it should have been documented during the inspection. I also understand that some chemical cleaning took place in the kitchen post-tenancy, which may have affected the surface. I request that you provide a dated photograph showing the alleged damage. Even if a minor mark exists, it appears to fall under reasonable wear and tear for a 2.5-year-old property. Replacing the entire bench seems excessive and unjustified under these circumstances. Legal principles
To succeed in a damage claim, the 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. 2 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B.
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). 3 In this case the landlord’s excess is $2,500.00 and the repair cost estimate is $2,287.93 so the insurance limitation does not apply. Discussion
The tenants submitted in their email that the landlord cannot prove the damage occurred during the tenancy. However, the landlord says the premises were not re- tenanted prior to the photograph of the damage being taken. It is unlikely that the landlord would have caused the damage by cleaning. The landlord admits they did not notice the damage at the exit inspection but explains they were distracted by the oven knob issue. I accept that explanation. I find the damage occurred during the tenancy.
I had some initial reservations about whether damage here amounted to more than fair wear and tear because the laminate material is not as heat resistant as other products such as stainless steel or stone. However, on reflection the tenants should have been cognisant of the benchtop material and taken precautions when cooking accordingly. The damage was most probably caused by a hot pan or pot making contact with the bench top. The tenants should have avoided allowing that to happen. I find that the damage amounted to more than fair wear and tear.
The tenants’ email submits there is a lack of proof of their carelessness: o I respectfully request the owner to provide at least one specific incident of negligence attributable to me during the tenancy period of 2.5 years. oTo the best of my knowledge, I have fulfilled my obligations as a tenant, and no such negligence occurred.
However, the onus of proof is on the tenants to the standard of the balance of probabilities. I am not persuaded that the tenants actions did not fall below the standard of the reasonable and prudent tenant.
Therefore, I find the tenants are liable for the damage for the stove.
The landlord supplied an estimate to replace the entire area of laminate in the vicinity of the stove. I do not consider that a complete replacement is necessary or fair. The landlord has re-tenanted the premises without completing a repair which illustrates that the need for repair is not urgent. The damage appears to be largely cosmetic in the photograph. If more than that there should be a way to seal the breach in the laminate or replace the damaged section, preferably with a superior material.
I consider it is fair to both parties to order the tenants to pay the landlord $500.00 for the cosmetic damage and for a localised repair. 3 RTA s 49B(3)(a). Filing fee
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its claim. I order the tenants to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee pursuant to s 102(4)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5304252 — net $746.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven knob repair	$218.05	Oven knob repair
Bench laminate damage	$500.00	Bench laminate damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	17. I consider it is fair to both parties to order the tenants to pay the landlord $500.00 for the cosmetic damage and for a localised repair.
Net award	$746.05
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$746.05

Order

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams.
Nayan Chauhan and Bhupendra Chauhan attended the hearing. 1 This order amends the original order dated 11 September by ordering the tenants to pay the landlord directly rather than from the bond as the Tribunal originally ordered because the bond had already been paid out to the tenants.
The tenants did not attend the hearing, which proceeded in their absence. The tenants did however email the Tribunal on 4 September 2025 to explain their probable absence from the hearing and to make written submissions. I have considered the tenants’ emails.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to the premises’ oven and stove, reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
When the tenancy ended, during the move-out inspection the landlord noticed that the tenant had glued on an oven knob, which had seized the knob so that the oven could not be used. The tenants accepted they were liable for the cost to repair the over.
The landlord did not, however, notice that the laminate behind the stove had been damaged. The landlord provided a photo of the area, which shows apparent heat damage adjacent to the stove’s rear elements.
The landlord submits that the tenants must have careless caused the damage: Repairs to the kitchen bench top - carelessness/negligence from the tenants when using the kitchen stove has resulted in burn marks and bubbling to the rear of the stove, likely from applying heat via pots and pans to the back of the bench top causing the laminate to burn and bubble. Due to the nature of the surface, a repair isn't possible to the area impacted and a full kitchen bench top replacement is necessary. We are seeking full costs from the tenant to allow us to proceed with the repair. This is a 2.5 year old property, with the tenants the only occupants when the damage was noted. A pre photo has been supplied to confirm this damage didn't exist pre tenancy and a builders response has been provided to confirm this isn't wear and tear. The tenant refuses to take responsibility for this damage.
The tenants do not accept the landlord’s claim. They say: If the mark was visible, it should have been documented during the inspection. I also understand that some chemical cleaning took place in the kitchen post-tenancy, which may have affected the surface. I request that you provide a dated photograph showing the alleged damage. Even if a minor mark exists, it appears to fall under reasonable wear and tear for a 2.5-year-old property. Replacing the entire bench seems excessive and unjustified under these circumstances. Legal principles
To succeed in a damage claim, the 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. 2 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B.
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). 3 In this case the landlord’s excess is $2,500.00 and the repair cost estimate is $2,287.93 so the insurance limitation does not apply. Discussion
The tenants submitted in their email that the landlord cannot prove the damage occurred during the tenancy. However, the landlord says the premises were not re- tenanted prior to the photograph of the damage being taken. It is unlikely that the landlord would have caused the damage by cleaning. The landlord admits they did not notice the damage at the exit inspection but explains they were distracted by the oven knob issue. I accept that explanation. I find the damage occurred during the tenancy.
I had some initial reservations about whether damage here amounted to more than fair wear and tear because the laminate material is not as heat resistant as other products such as stainless steel or stone. However, on reflection the tenants should have been cognisant of the benchtop material and taken precautions when cooking accordingly. The damage was most probably caused by a hot pan or pot making contact with the bench top. The tenants should have avoided allowing that to happen. I find that the damage amounted to more than fair wear and tear.
The tenants’ email submits there is a lack of proof of their carelessness: o I respectfully request the owner to provide at least one specific incident of negligence attributable to me during the tenancy period of 2.5 years. oTo the best of my knowledge, I have fulfilled my obligations as a tenant, and no such negligence occurred.
However, the onus of proof is on the tenants to the standard of the balance of probabilities. I am not persuaded that the tenants actions did not fall below the standard of the reasonable and prudent tenant.
Therefore, I find the tenants are liable for the damage for the stove.
The landlord supplied an estimate to replace the entire area of laminate in the vicinity of the stove. I do not consider that a complete replacement is necessary or fair. The landlord has re-tenanted the premises without completing a repair which illustrates that the need for repair is not urgent. The damage appears to be largely cosmetic in the photograph. If more than that there should be a way to seal the breach in the laminate or replace the damaged section, preferably with a superior material.
I consider it is fair to both parties to order the tenants to pay the landlord $500.00 for the cosmetic damage and for a localised repair. 3 RTA s 49B(3)(a). Filing fee
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its claim. I order the tenants to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee pursuant to s 102(4)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304252 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 602, 21 King Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304252 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 602, 21 King Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions