What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315881 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal makes suppression orders in favour of both parties.

How much money was awarded in case 5315881?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315881?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315881?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12492672-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315881 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal makes suppression orders in favour of both parties.

How much money was awarded in case 5315881?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315881?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315881?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12492672-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5315881 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5315881 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315881 — net $878.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$50.00	Rent arrears
Insurance excess vanity	$400.00	Insurance excess vanity
Insurance excess ranch slider	$400.00	Insurance excess ranch slider
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$878.00
Bond	$1,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$878.00

Claims and awards for application 5315881 — net $878.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $50.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Insurance excess vanity

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Insurance excess vanity

Insurance excess ranch slider

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Insurance excess ranch slider

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $878.00

Bond

Landlord $1,000.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal makes suppression orders in favour of both parties.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $878.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $878.00 [The tenant/s]: $122.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 12 August 2025 with [the tenant/s] owing $50 in rent arrears. He did not pay this as he was of the view he should be compensated $100 for the power outage he suffered on 23 July. [The landlord/s] has paid him $50 compensation, however he feels he is owed a further $50.
Because [the tenant/s] has not made a claim for compensation, I cannot consider his reason for withholding the rent. Accordingly, I am satisfied the $50 rent arrears is owing as sought.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

[The landlord/s] claims reimbursement of the following: a. The $400 insurance excess for replacing the bathroom vanity. b. The $400 insurance excess for replacing the internal sliding door.
[The tenant/s] disputes both claims
To be successful in such a claim, 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).
The question therefore to be answered here is whether the damages were fair wear and tear or careless damage.
Fair wear and tear is the expected toll taken on a house that comes from usual living. It is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, that the tenants will live in the dwelling, and in the process cause some wear and tear which is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives.
Carelessness is not defined in the RTA, but it has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The standard of care required is similar to the standard of care required by the general law of tort in negligence cases. Thus, the question can be expressed as whether the tenant, or some other person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, was “exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances: Mercier v Smith & Greenan14/12/98, Dunedin TT 228/93. Vanity
[The tenant/s] says that when the power was out he slipped when using the bathroom at night and landed on the vanity causing the crack. He says he should not be liable for the cost because it was not his fault the power was out.
[The landlord/s] says she offered [the tenant/s] alternative accommodation which he turned down, therefore it was his decision to remain in the property with no light. She also questions how a lack of light could cause such a slip.
Her insurance assessor has judged the damage to have been caused by a heavy item being dropped on the vanity and accepted the claim on that basis.
I must assess this claim based on the evidence provided to me and determine whether the claim is established to the standard of proof which is the balance of probabilities, or put another way, what is more likely than not. The burden of proving the claim lies with the applicant, [the landlord/s].
Having assessed the photos I am satisfied that this damage is in excess of fair wear and tear. Vanities do not crack and chip to this extent with normal use, particularly when only six years old.
The damage was certainly not caused intentionally, however I am satisfied on the evidence that it can be classified as careless damage. It was [the tenant/s]’s decision to remain in the property with no lighting and as so, up to him to use the property carefully. I find the insurance assessor’s evidence persuasive as to causation.
Accordingly, I find him liable for the insurance excess incurred in repairing the damage. Sliding door
The internal sliding door became stuck open towards the end of the tenancy. [The tenant/s] says it happened once earlier several weeks into the tenancy but righted itself. He does not know why it got stuck but says he rarely used the door and when he did was careful. He considers the damage fair wear and tear.
[The landlord/s]’s evidence is that the insurance assessor’s opinion is that “the sliding door has been used with excessive force where the whole unit is no longer aligned and cannot fully close. With the unit being only 4 - 6 years old, we do not believe it to be a wear and tear issue but from a one-off accidental event”.
She says several builders have attempted to repair it already however they are saying that the sliders within the cavity have been bent and as such the entire wall will need to be removed to realign the sliders.
Having assessed the evidence against the evidential threshold, I find the claim established. The assessor’s opinion is persuasive, and I accept that the rails for the door cannot have been damaged in this way but for the use of excessive force. There is no evidence that the unit is not well made and or that issues arose earlier.
As I have found the claim established in evidence, I direct that the insurance excess be paid from the bond. Should the tenant pay exemplary damages.
[The landlord/s] claims exemplary damages for the following alleged breach of the RTA by [the tenant/s]: a. Pursuant to section 48(4)(b) RTA: failure to allow the landlord access.
[The landlord/s]’s submission is that [the tenant/s] should pay exemplary damages for preventing the builder to come and assess the damage to the vanity. She says that when she asked him to allow the builder in, he said he would not allow anyone to come in when he was not present, and he declined to engage with the builder. As such she had to wait until the end of the tenancy several weeks later to allow the builder to attend.
[The tenant/s] says he was not aware a landlord did not need his permission for a tradie to enter. 1 He thought it was reasonable to require his presence. He says this was occurring towards the end of the tenancy when their relationship was fractious.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
It is an unlawful act for a tenant to prevent a landlord’s access to the property where they are statutorily allowed it pursuant to section 48 RTA. I do not however classify [the tenant/s]’s behaviour as actively preventing the access. He did make it difficult and as such [the landlord/s] dropped the matter, but he did not intentionally prevent the builder from attending. The tenancy ended shortly thereafter and as [the landlord/s] has not yet had the vanity replaced, there was no prejudice to the repair. 1 See section 48(2)(d) of the RTA
Accordingly, I do not consider an award of exemplary damages just 2 in these circumstances and dismiss the claim.

What other orders are required?

[The landlord/s] did raise the issue of excessive electricity usage. However, as the rent was contracted to cover electricity use without condition or qualification, she has no claim here.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claims I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion whilst weighing up the parties’ interests and the public interest.
Both parties have sought suppression orders. As [The landlord/s] was successful in her claims I approve her application for suppression.
I also approve [the tenant/s]’s. Given the circumstances I do not consider it proportionate for his identifying details to be published. He has been upfront with the Tribunal and has not acted maliciously. He was also successful in defending the claim for exemplary damages.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315881 — net $878.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$50.00	Rent arrears
Insurance excess vanity	$400.00	Insurance excess vanity
Insurance excess ranch slider	$400.00	Insurance excess ranch slider
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$878.00
Bond	$1,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$878.00

Claims and awards for application 5315881 — net $878.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $50.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Insurance excess vanity

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Insurance excess vanity

Insurance excess ranch slider

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Insurance excess ranch slider

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $878.00

Bond

Landlord $1,000.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal makes suppression orders in favour of both parties.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $878.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $878.00 [The tenant/s]: $122.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 12 August 2025 with [the tenant/s] owing $50 in rent arrears. He did not pay this as he was of the view he should be compensated $100 for the power outage he suffered on 23 July. [The landlord/s] has paid him $50 compensation, however he feels he is owed a further $50.
Because [the tenant/s] has not made a claim for compensation, I cannot consider his reason for withholding the rent. Accordingly, I am satisfied the $50 rent arrears is owing as sought.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

[The landlord/s] claims reimbursement of the following: a. The $400 insurance excess for replacing the bathroom vanity. b. The $400 insurance excess for replacing the internal sliding door.
[The tenant/s] disputes both claims
To be successful in such a claim, 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).
The question therefore to be answered here is whether the damages were fair wear and tear or careless damage.
Fair wear and tear is the expected toll taken on a house that comes from usual living. It is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, that the tenants will live in the dwelling, and in the process cause some wear and tear which is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives.
Carelessness is not defined in the RTA, but it has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The standard of care required is similar to the standard of care required by the general law of tort in negligence cases. Thus, the question can be expressed as whether the tenant, or some other person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, was “exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances: Mercier v Smith & Greenan14/12/98, Dunedin TT 228/93. Vanity
[The tenant/s] says that when the power was out he slipped when using the bathroom at night and landed on the vanity causing the crack. He says he should not be liable for the cost because it was not his fault the power was out.
[The landlord/s] says she offered [the tenant/s] alternative accommodation which he turned down, therefore it was his decision to remain in the property with no light. She also questions how a lack of light could cause such a slip.
Her insurance assessor has judged the damage to have been caused by a heavy item being dropped on the vanity and accepted the claim on that basis.
I must assess this claim based on the evidence provided to me and determine whether the claim is established to the standard of proof which is the balance of probabilities, or put another way, what is more likely than not. The burden of proving the claim lies with the applicant, [the landlord/s].
Having assessed the photos I am satisfied that this damage is in excess of fair wear and tear. Vanities do not crack and chip to this extent with normal use, particularly when only six years old.
The damage was certainly not caused intentionally, however I am satisfied on the evidence that it can be classified as careless damage. It was [the tenant/s]’s decision to remain in the property with no lighting and as so, up to him to use the property carefully. I find the insurance assessor’s evidence persuasive as to causation.
Accordingly, I find him liable for the insurance excess incurred in repairing the damage. Sliding door
The internal sliding door became stuck open towards the end of the tenancy. [The tenant/s] says it happened once earlier several weeks into the tenancy but righted itself. He does not know why it got stuck but says he rarely used the door and when he did was careful. He considers the damage fair wear and tear.
[The landlord/s]’s evidence is that the insurance assessor’s opinion is that “the sliding door has been used with excessive force where the whole unit is no longer aligned and cannot fully close. With the unit being only 4 - 6 years old, we do not believe it to be a wear and tear issue but from a one-off accidental event”.
She says several builders have attempted to repair it already however they are saying that the sliders within the cavity have been bent and as such the entire wall will need to be removed to realign the sliders.
Having assessed the evidence against the evidential threshold, I find the claim established. The assessor’s opinion is persuasive, and I accept that the rails for the door cannot have been damaged in this way but for the use of excessive force. There is no evidence that the unit is not well made and or that issues arose earlier.
As I have found the claim established in evidence, I direct that the insurance excess be paid from the bond. Should the tenant pay exemplary damages.
[The landlord/s] claims exemplary damages for the following alleged breach of the RTA by [the tenant/s]: a. Pursuant to section 48(4)(b) RTA: failure to allow the landlord access.
[The landlord/s]’s submission is that [the tenant/s] should pay exemplary damages for preventing the builder to come and assess the damage to the vanity. She says that when she asked him to allow the builder in, he said he would not allow anyone to come in when he was not present, and he declined to engage with the builder. As such she had to wait until the end of the tenancy several weeks later to allow the builder to attend.
[The tenant/s] says he was not aware a landlord did not need his permission for a tradie to enter. 1 He thought it was reasonable to require his presence. He says this was occurring towards the end of the tenancy when their relationship was fractious.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
It is an unlawful act for a tenant to prevent a landlord’s access to the property where they are statutorily allowed it pursuant to section 48 RTA. I do not however classify [the tenant/s]’s behaviour as actively preventing the access. He did make it difficult and as such [the landlord/s] dropped the matter, but he did not intentionally prevent the builder from attending. The tenancy ended shortly thereafter and as [the landlord/s] has not yet had the vanity replaced, there was no prejudice to the repair. 1 See section 48(2)(d) of the RTA
Accordingly, I do not consider an award of exemplary damages just 2 in these circumstances and dismiss the claim.

What other orders are required?

[The landlord/s] did raise the issue of excessive electricity usage. However, as the rent was contracted to cover electricity use without condition or qualification, she has no claim here.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claims I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion whilst weighing up the parties’ interests and the public interest.
Both parties have sought suppression orders. As [The landlord/s] was successful in her claims I approve her application for suppression.
I also approve [the tenant/s]’s. Given the circumstances I do not consider it proportionate for his identifying details to be published. He has been upfront with the Tribunal and has not acted maliciously. He was also successful in defending the claim for exemplary damages.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315881 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315881 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

What other orders are required?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

What other orders are required?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions