What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310180 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited as

How much money was awarded in case 5310180?

Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310180?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12734676-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310180 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited as

How much money was awarded in case 5310180?

Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310180?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12734676-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1A Johnston Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310180 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310180 — net $550.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess contribution	$550.00	Insurance excess contribution
Net award	$550.00
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$550.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited as agent for Ts Family Trust Scott McElroy $550.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 immediately apportioned as follows: Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For Ts Family Trust Scott McElroy: $550.00 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $2,450.00

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing by telephone. The tenants claimed for a refund of their bond and the hearing was previously adjourned for the landlord to file a claim against the bond, which they did on 7 October 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 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.
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.
It was not disputed that during the tenancy there was a slow leak in the laundry which damaged the floor. This was discovered by the tenant who acted promptly alerting the landlord, disconnecting the washing machine and organising the laundry floor to be dried out.
Ultimately the laundry floor required replacing the landlord received a quote on 7 August 2025 of $3443.10 from Visual Progression Construction and Interiors for the repairs.
A plumber’s report from Mainstream Plumbing and Gas stated that, from what the plumber could see, it looked like the leak was caused by incorrect installation of the washing machine, which was done by the tenant.
The claim for gradual damage due to leaking washing machine was accepted by the landlord’s insurance and they paid out a cash settlement based on the quote for repairs and invoice for the drying, less policy excess of $2750.00.
The landlord seeks reimbursement of the insurance excess.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear tenants dispute liability for the damage saying that ; •it was accidental damage. •they acted promptly and responsibly when it was discovered. •due to the construction of the cupboard, the leak was hidden, and water fell into a hole straight into the floor substrate making it very difficult to notice. •The leak probably came from a faulty machine hose which was replaced,

Was it accidental damage?

The tenant’s submission was that this damage was accidental which is a term not defined in the RTA, a tenant is only liable if damage was caused carelessly or intentionally.
What constitutes an accident can be difficult to define as careless and accidental can often appear to be the same thing.
To determine if it was an accident, it can be framed as the question, was the damage caused by pure accident, where all reasonable care was taken, but the damage still occurred and nothing the tenant could have done would have prevented it from occurring?
In determining whether a tenant was careless the Tribunal considers among other things, was the damage caused by an inadvertent lack of care by the tenant. The level of care being what could otherwise have been reasonably expected of a prudent tenant in such circumstances.
The tenant said that they believed the hose to the washing machine was the problem and it could have had a hole or perished in some way. The tenants said they thought this because the tap was not replaced but the hose was, and they experienced no further leaking issues.
There was no evidence given on the age or state of the washing machine and if it was well maintained.
The leak occurred either due to it being attached incorrectly or to an issue with the hose. I find that both situations cannot be classed as unexpected or purely accidental. At some point there was a fault to be discovered, and I find that this damage was careless.

Is the tenant liable for the insurance excess?

The landlord sought reimbursement of the insurance excess of $2750.00 for the damages. There are two concerns that I have with this claim.
First, It was agreed that the landlord did not include insurance information in the tenancy agreement .Under the insurance statement section was written , ‘details to come’. No insurance details were ever provided to the tenants.
The landlord said that the premises were under construction insurance until the day the tenancy began. They only looked into the insurance when a claim was raised, and it was confirmed that insurance was in place and backdated to the start of the tenancy.
It follows that the tenants were only made aware of the insurance details, and the amount set as the insurance excess, at the same time.
At the hearing the amount of excess paid by the landlord was established in insurance correspondence as the policy and schedule were not provided.
This is important information required by the tenant and it is a legal obligation under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that the contents of a tenancy agreement must include information about insurance including the amount of excess each claim attracts. It is the landlord’s responsibility to find out the insurance details and let the tenant know what they are and also to update if they change.
If the landlord fails to provide insurance information this can attract an award of exemplary damages. I do not have that claim before me so am unable to make an order in relation to this, but it is evidence of the importance put on informing a tenant of their potential liability for damages during a tenancy. An argument could be made that if a tenant was aware that the landlord has chosen a substantial excess then they would be extra vigilant in taking care and regularly checking the premises for any potential damages, or maybe reconsider committing to the tenancy.
Secondly, the landlord based his claim for repairs on a quote. The work has not been completed and the premises have been re-tenanted. The landlord said repairs will not be started until the current tenancy has ended.
When a claim is made for damages that are not covered by insurance and only a quote provided, the amounts ordered by the Tribunal are often nominal. The awards are nominal because the landlord has not completed any of the repairs and has not quantified the loss. A nominal sum is awarded to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations and have caused damage for which they are liable.
The landlord argued that because the insurance company has paid a cash settlement the amount to repair has been established. I disagree because in the future, when the repairs do occur, costs may change, and materials could be purchased at a different rate. The repair quote of $3443.10 was not broken down into labour units and materials.
The amount claimed by the landlord is the full excess and I have determined that the amount of $550.00 is awarded for the reasons above and that this is a fair and equitable based on a standard amount for an insurance excess.
Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful, and the filling fees are not reimbursed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310180 — net $550.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess contribution	$550.00	Insurance excess contribution
Net award	$550.00
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$550.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited as agent for Ts Family Trust Scott McElroy $550.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 immediately apportioned as follows: Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For Ts Family Trust Scott McElroy: $550.00 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $2,450.00

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing by telephone. The tenants claimed for a refund of their bond and the hearing was previously adjourned for the landlord to file a claim against the bond, which they did on 7 October 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 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.
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.
It was not disputed that during the tenancy there was a slow leak in the laundry which damaged the floor. This was discovered by the tenant who acted promptly alerting the landlord, disconnecting the washing machine and organising the laundry floor to be dried out.
Ultimately the laundry floor required replacing the landlord received a quote on 7 August 2025 of $3443.10 from Visual Progression Construction and Interiors for the repairs.
A plumber’s report from Mainstream Plumbing and Gas stated that, from what the plumber could see, it looked like the leak was caused by incorrect installation of the washing machine, which was done by the tenant.
The claim for gradual damage due to leaking washing machine was accepted by the landlord’s insurance and they paid out a cash settlement based on the quote for repairs and invoice for the drying, less policy excess of $2750.00.
The landlord seeks reimbursement of the insurance excess.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear tenants dispute liability for the damage saying that ; •it was accidental damage. •they acted promptly and responsibly when it was discovered. •due to the construction of the cupboard, the leak was hidden, and water fell into a hole straight into the floor substrate making it very difficult to notice. •The leak probably came from a faulty machine hose which was replaced,

Was it accidental damage?

The tenant’s submission was that this damage was accidental which is a term not defined in the RTA, a tenant is only liable if damage was caused carelessly or intentionally.
What constitutes an accident can be difficult to define as careless and accidental can often appear to be the same thing.
To determine if it was an accident, it can be framed as the question, was the damage caused by pure accident, where all reasonable care was taken, but the damage still occurred and nothing the tenant could have done would have prevented it from occurring?
In determining whether a tenant was careless the Tribunal considers among other things, was the damage caused by an inadvertent lack of care by the tenant. The level of care being what could otherwise have been reasonably expected of a prudent tenant in such circumstances.
The tenant said that they believed the hose to the washing machine was the problem and it could have had a hole or perished in some way. The tenants said they thought this because the tap was not replaced but the hose was, and they experienced no further leaking issues.
There was no evidence given on the age or state of the washing machine and if it was well maintained.
The leak occurred either due to it being attached incorrectly or to an issue with the hose. I find that both situations cannot be classed as unexpected or purely accidental. At some point there was a fault to be discovered, and I find that this damage was careless.

Is the tenant liable for the insurance excess?

The landlord sought reimbursement of the insurance excess of $2750.00 for the damages. There are two concerns that I have with this claim.
First, It was agreed that the landlord did not include insurance information in the tenancy agreement .Under the insurance statement section was written , ‘details to come’. No insurance details were ever provided to the tenants.
The landlord said that the premises were under construction insurance until the day the tenancy began. They only looked into the insurance when a claim was raised, and it was confirmed that insurance was in place and backdated to the start of the tenancy.
It follows that the tenants were only made aware of the insurance details, and the amount set as the insurance excess, at the same time.
At the hearing the amount of excess paid by the landlord was established in insurance correspondence as the policy and schedule were not provided.
This is important information required by the tenant and it is a legal obligation under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that the contents of a tenancy agreement must include information about insurance including the amount of excess each claim attracts. It is the landlord’s responsibility to find out the insurance details and let the tenant know what they are and also to update if they change.
If the landlord fails to provide insurance information this can attract an award of exemplary damages. I do not have that claim before me so am unable to make an order in relation to this, but it is evidence of the importance put on informing a tenant of their potential liability for damages during a tenancy. An argument could be made that if a tenant was aware that the landlord has chosen a substantial excess then they would be extra vigilant in taking care and regularly checking the premises for any potential damages, or maybe reconsider committing to the tenancy.
Secondly, the landlord based his claim for repairs on a quote. The work has not been completed and the premises have been re-tenanted. The landlord said repairs will not be started until the current tenancy has ended.
When a claim is made for damages that are not covered by insurance and only a quote provided, the amounts ordered by the Tribunal are often nominal. The awards are nominal because the landlord has not completed any of the repairs and has not quantified the loss. A nominal sum is awarded to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations and have caused damage for which they are liable.
The landlord argued that because the insurance company has paid a cash settlement the amount to repair has been established. I disagree because in the future, when the repairs do occur, costs may change, and materials could be purchased at a different rate. The repair quote of $3443.10 was not broken down into labour units and materials.
The amount claimed by the landlord is the full excess and I have determined that the amount of $550.00 is awarded for the reasons above and that this is a fair and equitable based on a standard amount for an insurance excess.
Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful, and the filling fees are not reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310180 — Property damage at 1A Johnston Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310180 — Property damage at 1A Johnston Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was it accidental damage?

Is the tenant liable for the insurance excess?

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?

Was it accidental damage?

Is the tenant liable for the insurance excess?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions