What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5307720 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay A1 Property Managers Limited $28.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5307720?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $391.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5307720?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5307720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12447456-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5307720 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay A1 Property Managers Limited $28.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5307720?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $391.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5307720?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5307720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12447456-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 11, 361 Madras Street, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5307720 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5307720 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Bench top repair	$391.00	Bench top repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay A1 Property Managers Limited $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $391.00 (6399367-016) to A1 Property Managers Limited immediately.

Reasons

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Edwards, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 8 October 2022 and ended on 7 July 2025.
On 17 July 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act. Repairs to the bench top
The landlord seeks $391.00 compensation for damage to the kitchen bench top after paying a contractor to carry out the repairs and provided an invoice for the amount claimed.
The tenant accepts the bench top was damaged during the tenancy but claims that it is no more than fair wear and tear. The tenant states that the damage occurred after he accidently put a hot pan on the bench top, causing it to blister and a scorch mark to appear, while distracted.
The tenant states the landlord did not require the damage to be fixed during the tenancy and takes issue with the repair costs.
The landlord states the damage to the bench top was caused carelessly and is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord said the costs claimed are less than their $500.00 insurance excess, and that the decision to repair the bench top was based on what would be most cost effective for the tenant. Analysis and Decision
In this case the landlord’s claim is that the damage to the bench top is more than fair wear and tear and was caused carelessly, as opposed to intentionally, by the tenant.
The tenant claims that the damage amounts to no more than fair wear and tear, which is an exception to tenant liability in accordance with section 49A(2) of the Act.
“Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant.” See Sharma and Sharma v Tenant [2021] NZTT 4294819, 4293319.
In this case the Tribunal finds that the damage to the bench top was not caused by deterioration over time through normal use by the tenant and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage occurred after the tenant placed a hot pot on the bench top while distracted causing it to blister. The claim is proved and costs of $391.00 are ordered. Costs
Because A1 Property Managers Limited have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name Suppression
Under section 95A of the Act, a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so. The landlord has been wholly successful but did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5307720 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Bench top repair	$391.00	Bench top repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay A1 Property Managers Limited $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $391.00 (6399367-016) to A1 Property Managers Limited immediately.

Reasons

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Edwards, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 8 October 2022 and ended on 7 July 2025.
On 17 July 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act. Repairs to the bench top
The landlord seeks $391.00 compensation for damage to the kitchen bench top after paying a contractor to carry out the repairs and provided an invoice for the amount claimed.
The tenant accepts the bench top was damaged during the tenancy but claims that it is no more than fair wear and tear. The tenant states that the damage occurred after he accidently put a hot pan on the bench top, causing it to blister and a scorch mark to appear, while distracted.
The tenant states the landlord did not require the damage to be fixed during the tenancy and takes issue with the repair costs.
The landlord states the damage to the bench top was caused carelessly and is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord said the costs claimed are less than their $500.00 insurance excess, and that the decision to repair the bench top was based on what would be most cost effective for the tenant. Analysis and Decision
In this case the landlord’s claim is that the damage to the bench top is more than fair wear and tear and was caused carelessly, as opposed to intentionally, by the tenant.
The tenant claims that the damage amounts to no more than fair wear and tear, which is an exception to tenant liability in accordance with section 49A(2) of the Act.
“Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant.” See Sharma and Sharma v Tenant [2021] NZTT 4294819, 4293319.
In this case the Tribunal finds that the damage to the bench top was not caused by deterioration over time through normal use by the tenant and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage occurred after the tenant placed a hot pot on the bench top while distracted causing it to blister. The claim is proved and costs of $391.00 are ordered. Costs
Because A1 Property Managers Limited have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name Suppression
Under section 95A of the Act, a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so. The landlord has been wholly successful but did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5307720 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 11, 361 Madras Street, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5307720 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 11, 361 Madras Street, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions