What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5306619 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 5306619?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $285.69 awarded to landlord; Concrete Block Wall: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5306619?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5306619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12643120-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5306619 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 5306619?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $285.69 awarded to landlord; Concrete Block Wall: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5306619?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5306619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12643120-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

70 Grant Road, Otatara, RD 9, Invercargill 9879 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5306619 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5306619 — net $813.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 July 2025	$285.69	Rent arrears to 7 July 2025
Repairs: Concrete block wall	$500.00	Repairs: Concrete block wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$813.69
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$813.69

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 Inspire Property Management As The Agent For S George $813.69 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Inspire Property Management As The Agent For S George: $813.69 [The tenant/s]: $1,186.31
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Compensation
The landlord claimed $1,322.50 for repairs to a concrete block wall on the front boundary of the property and to gabion retaining walls inside the property bordering the driveway.
The tenant acknowledged damaging the concrete block wall when exiting or entering the driveway. The tenant had attempted to repair the wall, but the landlord says that the blocks were loose.
The end of tenancy photograph shows where the wall was repaired as different coloured paint was used. I am satisfied that the tenant caused damage to the concrete block wall during this tenancy.
The landlord did not submit an insurance claim for damage which would have been caused accidentally by the tenant. Under section 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the principles established in Holler & Rouse v Osaki 1 , the landlord is required to claim on their insurance for accidental or careless damage. The tenant is only liable for the insurance excess (up to $1,000 or the actual excess, whichever is lower), unless the damage was intentional or caused by an unlawful act.
The landlord should have claimed on their insurance before seeking compensation from the tenant. At the hearing the landlord said that the insurance excess had increased to $1,000.00 which may have affected the landlord’s decision not to make an insurance claim.
The Tenancy Agreement contained, appropriately, a completed Insurance Statement. This recorded the insurance excess as $500.00.
The Insurance Statement, as required by the Act 2 forms an important part of the tenancy agreement, as demonstrated by Parliament making a failure to comply an infringement offence and liable to a fine or an infringement fee 3 . 1 [2016] NZCA 130 2 Section 13A(2)(b), 45(2B) and (2C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The Act provides 4 that if there is any change to the insurance information then the landlord must within a reasonable time after the landlord became aware of the change, provide the tenant with a copy of the correct information. As the tenant was not advised of any change, I have determined that where appropriate the insurance excess of $500.00 as stated in the tenancy agreement should stand.
The Tribunal determines that the tenant contribution toward this damage is limited to the insurance excess of $500.00 which is awarded.
I note that the claim included damage to the gabion retaining wall. At the beginning of the tenancy there was damage to the wall as evidenced in the ingoing inspection report. I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant caused further damage to the gabion wall. Because of this I would have reduced the invoice amount sought by the landlord, but as the full invoice was not awarded a reduction was not necessary.
The landlord claimed $775.00 for replacement of the cover of the tunnel house in the garden of the premises. The repairs have not been carried out.
The landlord did not know how old the tunnel house was or if there had been any maintenance caried out by the landlord in respect of the tunnel house.
The tenant said that the tunnel house had a grapevine and a feijoa tree growing inside the tunnel house at the beginning of the tenancy. She said the trees had made holes in the cover and she removed them so that the tunnel house could be used. She said that during the tenancy further holes were caused to the tunnel house by stones from the lawn mower. She had attempted to repair the cover of the tunnel house.
The tenant says that the tunnel house was at the premises in 2012 which means that it is at least 13 years old. The current owners purchased the premises in 2013. There is no evidence that the tunnel house was present before the owners purchased the property or installed after purchase. It is therefore difficult to determine the age of the tunnel house.
The photographs from before the tenancy commenced show that the tunnel house was covered in lichen and was not in a new state. The trees inside the tunnel house can also be seen. If the tenant had not removed these, they would likely have damaged the tunnel house.
The age of the tunnel house is relevant because the Tribunal must ensure that depreciation is taken into account, and that the landlord is not placed in a better position than before the damage occurred. 3 Schedule 1B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 4 Section 13A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The photographs in the outgoing inspection report do not show that the tunnel house was in a worse state than when the tenancy commenced.
Given the evidence presented the claim for damage to the tunnel house is not proved and is therefore dismissed.
The landlord claimed $908.90 for an electrician’s invoice following loss of power at the premises. The invoice is dated 26 September 2024, ten months before the tenancy ended.
The invoice states that oversize fuses were found, and these were replaced.
The tenant said that there were problems with a power outlet in 2023. The tenant asked a friend, who she says is a registered electrician to look at it and this was approved by the current property manager.
Then later the tenant said that the lights to the bottom storey of the premises kept blowing and the property manager was again contacted. She approved another electrician friend of the tenant looking at the situation. On that occasion a faulty light fitting was replaced.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the property manager (acting for the landlord) has approved the tenant’s use of their electrician friend, and this is considered landlord consent for the work to be carried out by that person.
The landlord can still expect that the work is done to a proper standard and in compliance with relevant regulations (eg. Electrical safety). If the work is substandard or non-compliant, the landlord may have recourse against the electrician, but not against the tenant if the tenant acted with approval.
On the evidence produced I am not satisfied that the tenant caused damage to the electrical system at the premises. The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
Because Inspire Property Management As The Agent For S George has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Pursuant to section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, I order that the name and identifying details of the tenants are suppressed and must not be published. This order is made on the grounds that the tenants are protected persons as defined in the Family Violence Act 2018 5 . Publication of the tenant’s details would be contrary to the interests of the parties and the public interest in cases involving family violence. 5 Section 8

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5306619 — net $813.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 July 2025	$285.69	Rent arrears to 7 July 2025
Repairs: Concrete block wall	$500.00	Repairs: Concrete block wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$813.69
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$813.69

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 Inspire Property Management As The Agent For S George $813.69 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Inspire Property Management As The Agent For S George: $813.69 [The tenant/s]: $1,186.31
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Compensation
The landlord claimed $1,322.50 for repairs to a concrete block wall on the front boundary of the property and to gabion retaining walls inside the property bordering the driveway.
The tenant acknowledged damaging the concrete block wall when exiting or entering the driveway. The tenant had attempted to repair the wall, but the landlord says that the blocks were loose.
The end of tenancy photograph shows where the wall was repaired as different coloured paint was used. I am satisfied that the tenant caused damage to the concrete block wall during this tenancy.
The landlord did not submit an insurance claim for damage which would have been caused accidentally by the tenant. Under section 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the principles established in Holler & Rouse v Osaki 1 , the landlord is required to claim on their insurance for accidental or careless damage. The tenant is only liable for the insurance excess (up to $1,000 or the actual excess, whichever is lower), unless the damage was intentional or caused by an unlawful act.
The landlord should have claimed on their insurance before seeking compensation from the tenant. At the hearing the landlord said that the insurance excess had increased to $1,000.00 which may have affected the landlord’s decision not to make an insurance claim.
The Tenancy Agreement contained, appropriately, a completed Insurance Statement. This recorded the insurance excess as $500.00.
The Insurance Statement, as required by the Act 2 forms an important part of the tenancy agreement, as demonstrated by Parliament making a failure to comply an infringement offence and liable to a fine or an infringement fee 3 . 1 [2016] NZCA 130 2 Section 13A(2)(b), 45(2B) and (2C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The Act provides 4 that if there is any change to the insurance information then the landlord must within a reasonable time after the landlord became aware of the change, provide the tenant with a copy of the correct information. As the tenant was not advised of any change, I have determined that where appropriate the insurance excess of $500.00 as stated in the tenancy agreement should stand.
The Tribunal determines that the tenant contribution toward this damage is limited to the insurance excess of $500.00 which is awarded.
I note that the claim included damage to the gabion retaining wall. At the beginning of the tenancy there was damage to the wall as evidenced in the ingoing inspection report. I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant caused further damage to the gabion wall. Because of this I would have reduced the invoice amount sought by the landlord, but as the full invoice was not awarded a reduction was not necessary.
The landlord claimed $775.00 for replacement of the cover of the tunnel house in the garden of the premises. The repairs have not been carried out.
The landlord did not know how old the tunnel house was or if there had been any maintenance caried out by the landlord in respect of the tunnel house.
The tenant said that the tunnel house had a grapevine and a feijoa tree growing inside the tunnel house at the beginning of the tenancy. She said the trees had made holes in the cover and she removed them so that the tunnel house could be used. She said that during the tenancy further holes were caused to the tunnel house by stones from the lawn mower. She had attempted to repair the cover of the tunnel house.
The tenant says that the tunnel house was at the premises in 2012 which means that it is at least 13 years old. The current owners purchased the premises in 2013. There is no evidence that the tunnel house was present before the owners purchased the property or installed after purchase. It is therefore difficult to determine the age of the tunnel house.
The photographs from before the tenancy commenced show that the tunnel house was covered in lichen and was not in a new state. The trees inside the tunnel house can also be seen. If the tenant had not removed these, they would likely have damaged the tunnel house.
The age of the tunnel house is relevant because the Tribunal must ensure that depreciation is taken into account, and that the landlord is not placed in a better position than before the damage occurred. 3 Schedule 1B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 4 Section 13A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The photographs in the outgoing inspection report do not show that the tunnel house was in a worse state than when the tenancy commenced.
Given the evidence presented the claim for damage to the tunnel house is not proved and is therefore dismissed.
The landlord claimed $908.90 for an electrician’s invoice following loss of power at the premises. The invoice is dated 26 September 2024, ten months before the tenancy ended.
The invoice states that oversize fuses were found, and these were replaced.
The tenant said that there were problems with a power outlet in 2023. The tenant asked a friend, who she says is a registered electrician to look at it and this was approved by the current property manager.
Then later the tenant said that the lights to the bottom storey of the premises kept blowing and the property manager was again contacted. She approved another electrician friend of the tenant looking at the situation. On that occasion a faulty light fitting was replaced.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the property manager (acting for the landlord) has approved the tenant’s use of their electrician friend, and this is considered landlord consent for the work to be carried out by that person.
The landlord can still expect that the work is done to a proper standard and in compliance with relevant regulations (eg. Electrical safety). If the work is substandard or non-compliant, the landlord may have recourse against the electrician, but not against the tenant if the tenant acted with approval.
On the evidence produced I am not satisfied that the tenant caused damage to the electrical system at the premises. The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
Because Inspire Property Management As The Agent For S George has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Pursuant to section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, I order that the name and identifying details of the tenants are suppressed and must not be published. This order is made on the grounds that the tenants are protected persons as defined in the Family Violence Act 2018 5 . Publication of the tenant’s details would be contrary to the interests of the parties and the public interest in cases involving family violence. 5 Section 8

Tenancy Tribunal case 5306619 — Property damage at 70 Grant Road, Otatara, RD 9, Invercargill 9879

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5306619 — Property damage at 70 Grant Road, Otatara, RD 9, Invercargill 9879

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions