What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5308959 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $750.00 from

How much money was awarded in case 5308959?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308959?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12570293-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5308959 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $750.00 from

How much money was awarded in case 5308959?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308959?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12570293-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 698 Fergusson Drive, Elderslea, Upper Hutt Tenancy Tribunal Case 5308959 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5308959 — net $750.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: carpet (insurance excess contribution	$750.00	Replace furnishings: carpet (insurance excess contribution
Net award	$750.00
Bond	$1,500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$750.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $750.00 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 (6168151-005) immediately apportioned as follows: [The tenant/s] landlord/s]: $750.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $750.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damages and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 28 January 2023.

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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 landlord claims for: a. A damaged stove top. b. A damaged bathroom basin. c. Staining to the carpet.
With respect to the carpet, the landlord says that due to staining and cat urine, carpet cleaning was not effective, and the landlord was required to replace the carpet. Insurance provided cover; however, they charged two excesses having considered that the damage was a result of two separate events. Each excess was $500, totalling $1,000.00 for the claim relating to carpet damage.
The landlord says that the damaged stove top and damaged bathroom basin was caused by the tenant. However, the landlord did not carry out repairs prior to selling the property. He relies on advice by an agent that these items reduced the sale price, although there is no detail on the amount the sale price may have been reduced by.
The landlord claims an insurance excess amount of $500.00 for each item.
The tenant considers that there may have been on single carpet stain in bedroom 2, however, says that they dispute all over staining and say that they never had any issues with cat urine at the property.
With respect to the stove top and basin, although they agree that this damage occurred during the tenancy, they say that they should not be liable for it as there is no evidence on the amount of the damage.
More broadly, they do not understand why this has take two years to be brought to the Tribunal and consider that if the landlord had met with them on site at the end of the tenancy, they could have done a walk through together and these items could have been identified and resolved at the time. Discussion
With respect to the stove top and basin, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven a loss.
The email from the agent is essentially a broad statement that buyers discount on price for any work they perceive to be necessary to a property, but it is not clear how much this property was specifically affected, if at all. I do not consider that this is sufficient evidence of loss for me to be sure. Damages are to restore the landlord to the position had the damage and loss not occurred, but I do not have enough evidence to prove that the landlord is not already in that position following the sale of the property.
I also note that the standard a tenant must leave a property in under the RTA is not the same standard as required for sale.
With respect to the carpet, it was not new. Some staining would also be expected during a five-year tenancy. However, I accept from the evidence that some staining (beyond fair wear and tear) did occur during the tenancy, and award $750.00 to the landlord towards the claimed insurance excesses.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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.
As both parties have had some success, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. These costs should lie where they fall. Neither party sought name suppression. R Harvey-Lane 24 October 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5308959 — net $750.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: carpet (insurance excess contribution	$750.00	Replace furnishings: carpet (insurance excess contribution
Net award	$750.00
Bond	$1,500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$750.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $750.00 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 (6168151-005) immediately apportioned as follows: [The tenant/s] landlord/s]: $750.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $750.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damages and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 28 January 2023.

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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 landlord claims for: a. A damaged stove top. b. A damaged bathroom basin. c. Staining to the carpet.
With respect to the carpet, the landlord says that due to staining and cat urine, carpet cleaning was not effective, and the landlord was required to replace the carpet. Insurance provided cover; however, they charged two excesses having considered that the damage was a result of two separate events. Each excess was $500, totalling $1,000.00 for the claim relating to carpet damage.
The landlord says that the damaged stove top and damaged bathroom basin was caused by the tenant. However, the landlord did not carry out repairs prior to selling the property. He relies on advice by an agent that these items reduced the sale price, although there is no detail on the amount the sale price may have been reduced by.
The landlord claims an insurance excess amount of $500.00 for each item.
The tenant considers that there may have been on single carpet stain in bedroom 2, however, says that they dispute all over staining and say that they never had any issues with cat urine at the property.
With respect to the stove top and basin, although they agree that this damage occurred during the tenancy, they say that they should not be liable for it as there is no evidence on the amount of the damage.
More broadly, they do not understand why this has take two years to be brought to the Tribunal and consider that if the landlord had met with them on site at the end of the tenancy, they could have done a walk through together and these items could have been identified and resolved at the time. Discussion
With respect to the stove top and basin, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven a loss.
The email from the agent is essentially a broad statement that buyers discount on price for any work they perceive to be necessary to a property, but it is not clear how much this property was specifically affected, if at all. I do not consider that this is sufficient evidence of loss for me to be sure. Damages are to restore the landlord to the position had the damage and loss not occurred, but I do not have enough evidence to prove that the landlord is not already in that position following the sale of the property.
I also note that the standard a tenant must leave a property in under the RTA is not the same standard as required for sale.
With respect to the carpet, it was not new. Some staining would also be expected during a five-year tenancy. However, I accept from the evidence that some staining (beyond fair wear and tear) did occur during the tenancy, and award $750.00 to the landlord towards the claimed insurance excesses.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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.
As both parties have had some success, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. These costs should lie where they fall. Neither party sought name suppression. R Harvey-Lane 24 October 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308959 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 698 Fergusson Drive, Elderslea, Upper Hutt

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308959 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 698 Fergusson Drive, Elderslea, Upper Hutt

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.