What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313629 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 5313629?

Cleaning: $103.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $42.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $149.96 awarded to landlord; Glazing Back Door Lower Pane: $253.92 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $318.97 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $268.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313629?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12707806-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313629 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 5313629?

Cleaning: $103.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $42.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $149.96 awarded to landlord; Glazing Back Door Lower Pane: $253.92 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $318.97 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $268.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313629?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12707806-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5313629 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313629. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$268.40	Water rates
Repairs: Wall repairs	$318.97	Repairs: Wall repairs
Lock/key replacement	$149.96	Lock/key replacement
Heat pump remote	$42.14	Heat pump remote
Repairs: Glazing back door lower pane	$253.92	Repairs: Glazing back door lower pane
Carpet cleaning	$103.50	Carpet cleaning
Compensation - carpet stain	$500.00	Compensation - carpet stain
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	76. The cost of re-glazing is proven.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313629. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$268.40	Water rates
Repairs: Wall repairs	$318.97	Repairs: Wall repairs
Lock/key replacement	$149.96	Lock/key replacement
Heat pump remote	$42.14	Heat pump remote
Repairs: Glazing back door lower pane	$253.92	Repairs: Glazing back door lower pane
Carpet cleaning	$103.50	Carpet cleaning
Compensation - carpet stain	$500.00	Compensation - carpet stain
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	76. The cost of re-glazing is proven.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: : :

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 20 January 2023 and ended on 13 July 2025.
The landlords live in the neighbouring unit in the duplex, [Tenancy address suppressed]. The two units share a driveway.
The tenants’ application raises issues relating to: a. Damage to their dryer allegedly caused by [Landlord 1] during a laundry flood incident in August 2023, and recovery of costs that they paid after that incident. b. Breach of quiet enjoyment. c. An area that they used during the tenancy that they subsequently discovered was Council reserve.
The tenants seek refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlords’ application seeks water rates, repairs, replacement of carpet in one room, and change of locks.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 15 October 2025. Mr Preston and Ms Gundry attended the hearing in person. [Landlord 1] attended by phone, with the consent of the Tribunal. Tenant application Laundry flood
There was a flood in the laundry on 11 August 2023.
Ms Gundry was home at the time. She let [Landlord 1] know what had happened. Ms Gundry said that [Landlord 1] came rushing over to the property and flipped her dryer onto its side. Ms Gundry said that the dryer was working fine before this, but putting it on its side caused damage to it and it no longer worked.
[Landlord 1] had a different recollection. He said that when he got to the laundry the dryer was already on its side. All he did was shift it onto some towels.
Ms Gundry disputed this. She said that she was pregnant at the time and she would not have put the dryer onto its side on her own.
This incident happened in the context of a tenancy, but the claim is based on the general law of negligence. The argument is that [Landlord 1] carelessly damaged Mr Preston and Ms Gundry’s property.
Mr Preston and Ms Gundry must meet the civil burden of the proof. They must prove the necessary elements of their claim to the standard of “more likely than not”.
I have very little evidence about this incident, which occurred more than two years ago.
As noted above, Ms Gundry and [Landlord 1] have different recollections about what happened. In particular, [Landlord 1] denies that he put the dryer on its side.
There is no assessment or other type of independent evidence about the damage to the dryer.
My finding is that the tenants have not met the burden of proof. There is simply not evidence to establish that [Landlord 1] carelessly damaged the dryer.
The other part of the tenants’ claim in relation to the laundry flood is that [Landlord 1] required them to pay for remediation costs based on an argument that the flood was caused by the tenants blocking the waste pipe.
Mr Preston and Ms Gundry said that they felt that they could not dispute this at the time. They wanted to “keep the peace” with the landlord. They were concerned that if they challenged [Landlord 1] their tenancy could be terminated. Therefore, they arranged for the drying out and necessary repairs (assisted by a builder friend).
They said a peg was found in the waste pipe which is not theirs. In their view, the blockage is a maintenance issue, and the landlord should have paid for the tidy up and repairs.
[Landlord 1] maintains that the tenants are liable for the laundry flood because the tenants noticed, or should have noticed, that the tub was blocking up and not draining. He said that the tenants were obliged to clear the blockage or to notify him of the need to do it.
[Landlord 1] provided a photograph, taken shortly after the flood, showing what was in the waste pipe that caused the blockage.
[Landlord 1] said that the waste pipe had been newly fitted not long before the start of this tenancy, when the laundry was renovated, so it is not a pre-existing blockage. No evidence was provided of this.
Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear, that is caused by any careless or intentional action by themselves or by anyone who is at the premises with their consent. 1 Tenants must also “notify the landlord as soon as possible [...] of the need for any repairs”. 2 1 Section 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 40(1)(d) RTA
I acknowledge the reasons why the tenants did not dispute the costs at the time. The tenants are not prevented from raising this issue again and asking the Tenancy Tribunal to determine it, but their decision to not dispute it at the does cause them difficulties now. Firstly, the trail of evidence is very cold. The incident happened more than two years ago. Secondly, the landlord has been deprived of the opportunity to take further steps, such as gathering more evidence or involving his insurers, on the reasonable understanding that the tenants did not dispute liability. Thirdly, there is no evidence of the costs that the tenants incurred.
Having regard to those factors my finding is that it is not appropriate to retrospectively hold the landlord liable for the laundry flood. Breach of quiet enjoyment
Landlords must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of the tenant. A breach of this duty, in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act. The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $3,000 for harassment. 3
[The landlord/s] live next door to the tenanted premises. They are on a shared driveway. Part of the parking area for [The landlord/s] property is outside the unit that Mr Preston and Ms Gundry rented. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, [Landlord 1] is responsible for maintaining the lawns and gardens.
Mr Preston and Ms Gundry said that [Landlord 1] breached their peace and privacy because it seemed that he was ‘always there’.
Mr Preston and Ms Gundry did not allege that [Landlord 1] was ever at the premises for purposes that did not relate to his obligations as a landlord (repairs, doing the lawns and gardens, etc), and they did not allege that he ever acted or spoke inappropriately when he was there.
Their argument was simply that he was there very often, which them feeling that they had no peace and privacy.
The evidence available to the Tribunal is necessarily very limited and anecdotal.
I acknowledge the tenants’ perception that they had no peace and privacy. However, to make a finding that [Landlord 1] has interfered with their peace comfort and privacy I have to be satisfied that the amount of time that he spent at the property was unnecessary – that he was there when he did not need to be. That requires some sort of objective evidence – something more than a subjective perception. 3 Section 38(3) RTA
There is not sufficient evidence to support such a finding in this instance. Council reserve
At the back of the unit there is a small lawn then a hedge which has a gate in it. Beyond the hedge there is an area with mowed grass and fruit trees.
[The landlord/s] do not own the area beyond the hedge. It is Council reserve.
Mr Preston and Ms Gundry said that: a. [Landlord 1] did not tell him that this land was Council reserve. b. They used the land in ways that would be contrary to the Council’s rules around the use of such land, including allowing their guests to park their cars there. c. They only discovered at the end of the tenancy that it is Council land.
[Landlord 1] said that both he and the [redacted] agent who set up the tenancy told Mr Preston and Ms Gundry that the area beyond the gate was Council reserve. He said that he has a long-standing arrangement with the [district council] that he maintains this area.
In the absence of any clarification by the landlord, tenants can reasonably assume that what appears to be the tenanted premises is in fact the tenanted premises, and that they have exclusive use of it.
In this instance though, the Council area is beyond a hedge and gate. A reasonable tenant would assume that they have the exclusive use of the area up to the hedge and the gate but obviously they could not make any such assumption about the area beyond the hedge. Mr Preston and Ms Gundry’s understanding that they had free but non-exclusive use of the area beyond the hedge was not incorrect. They did have the use of that area. Technically, the general public also has the right to walk on that land, but because of its location it seems that only [The landlord/s] and their tenants in fact use this area.
I agree that it is appropriate for [The landlord/s] to make the situation clear to their tenants. This could be done very simply by adding a clause to the written tenancy agreement.
I accept that Mr Preston and Ms Gundry were not aware that this was Council reserve land.
However, I do no think that Mr Preston and Ms Gundry suffered any loss or disadvantage as a consequence of not knowing this. They were aware that they could access and enjoy this part of the property and they did so. They were aware that it was not exclusively for their use. The fact that they allowed their guests to park their vehicles there did not cause any problems or consequences.
Therefore: a. I agree that [The landlord/s] should explain to their tenants that this area is Council reserve. b. It is not proven that they explained this to Mr Preston and Ms Gundry. c. I accept that [The landlord/s] did not intentionally withhold this information, seeking to deceive Mr Preston and Gundry. d. In this instance the failure to explain did not cause any disadvantage to Mr Preston and Ms Gundry. e. There is no basis for any award of compensation or exemplary damages. Landlords’ claim Water rates, wall repairs, heat pump remote
The tenants accepted these parts of the landlords’ claim. Carpet
[Landlord 1] said that the carpet was new at the beginning of the tenancy.
[Landlord 1] carried a final inspection during the day on 13 July, the final day of the tenancy. The tenants had already moved out and removed their belongings. [Landlord 1] did not notice any carpet stains.
[Landlord 1] returned later that day and then noticed a large stain on the carpet near the wall in the bedroom. He did not contact the tenants about the stain.
[Landlord 1] arranged for treatment of the stain by [carpet cleaner]. Unfortunately, the stain could not be entirely removed.
[Landlord 1] obtained a quote from [Floor and carpet store] for $1,745.00 to replace the carpet in that bedroom.
Mr Preston and Ms Gundry said that they know nothing about the stain. They were not aware of it. They questioned why [Landlord 1] did not notice the stain during his final inspection and why he did not say anything to them about it.
Mr Preston and Ms Gundry said that they had a mattress on the floor of the carpet in this area, but only for a relatively brief period of time.
[Landlord 1] provided photographs of the stain. He said that one of the photographs was taken on 13 July and the other was taken after the stain treatment by [carpet cleaner].
I acknowledge Mr Preston and Ms Gundry’s puzzlement about the carpet stain claim. It is surprising that [Landlord 1] did not notice the stain at the final inspection, and I agree that it would have been appropriate for [Landlord 1] to let the tenants know about it when he discovered it.
However, there are only two possibilities. Either the stain was there on 13 July when the tenants left, in which case it occurred during their tenancy (the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy), or it was not there, and [Landlord 1] intentionally caused the stain himself in an attempt to ‘frame’ the tenants.
In my view the latter explanation is simply not credible.
Therefore, I find that it is more likely than not that the stain occurred during the tenancy.
The stain is damage to the carpet that is beyond fair wear and tear.
The tenants are liable for the cost of the attempted stain removal by [carpet cleaner].
[Landlord 1] argued that the damage is intentional because he believes that the tenants intentionally concealed the stain by putting a mattress over it.
The argument is not logical. Even if [Landlord 1] could prove that the tenants intentionally concealed the stain (which is not proven) that does not mean that they intentionally caused it.
Having regard to the post-treatment photograph of the stain, I do not think that complete replacement of the carpet in this room is justified. The stain is a slightly dark / discoloured area on a grey carpet. I understand that the premises have been re-let to a new tenant.
The stain is damage to the carpet and the landlords have suffered a loss. The loss is that the carpet does not look as good as it did before. It is appropriate to award compensation that properly reflects that loss, which is less than the cost of complete replacement.
I will award compensation of $500.00. Keys
At the end of a tenancy the tenant must return to the landlord all of the keys and other security devices that were provided to them.
At the start of this tenancy the landlord’s provided keys for the back door, ranchslider, shed, and a key that locked several doors and windows.
[Landlord 1] said that at the end of the tenancy he did not get back that last key.
Mr Preston and Ms Gundry acknowledged that they received multiple keys at the start of the tenancy, but they only used the main entrance keys, so the other keys remained in a drawer during the tenancy. At the end, they returned the bundle of keys.
It is not possible to know exactly what happened here. However, I accept that [Landlord 1] would not have changed the locks if he had received back the key.
Therefore my finding is that it is more likely than not that this key went missing during the tenancy and was not returned.
The cost of change of locks is proven. Re-glazing back door glass pane
[Landlord 1] provided a photograph showing a crack in the glass pane. It appears that the door has suffered an impact from the inside. [Landlord 1] said that he took the photograph at the final inspection.
Mr Preston and Ms Gundry were not aware of the damage. They do not know how it could have happened.
[Landlord 1]’s photograph shows that the damage was present on the last day of the tenancy.
Although the circumstances of the damage are unknown, the nature of the damage is such that it is not ‘fair wear and tear’. The door has suffered an impact.
On the basis that it is damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurred during the tenancy, my finding is that the tenants are liable for this damage.
The cost of re-glazing is proven. Outcome, filing fee, bond, name suppression
The tenants’ application is dismissed.
The landlords have been substantially successful in their application. I will award the landlords the filing fee for their application. 4 The landlords sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the basis that the landlords succeeded in the proceedings. 5 N Blake, 13 November 2025 4 Section 102(4)(a) RTA 5 Section 95A(1) RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313629 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313629 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions