Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317980 — Property damage at 3B Putiputi Way, Papakura, Papakura 2110

Decided 31 Oct 2025 · Published 31 Oct 2025 · Application 5317980

Property damage

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

Papakura

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

H Ben Fayed

Claims & awards

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

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claims that the respondent caused damage to the walls in several areas of the property, including the wardrobes, hallway, lounge, and kitchen ceiling, and seeks compensation for the repair costs, as evidenced by a $920.00 invoice.
In support of the claim, the landlord provided pre-tenancy and post-tenancy inspection photographs. The pre-tenancy photographs do not show the areas identified as damaged in the post-tenancy photographs.
The respondent contends that the alleged damages were present at the commencement of the tenancy and that the post-tenancy photographs were taken from different angles and of areas not shown in the in-going inspection report.
Other damage, identified by the applicant in the invoice and accompanying photographs consist of minor dents and scratches and faded paint on the door frame. These are consistent with fair wear and tear. Such marks commonly arise from ordinary use and occupancy of the premises, including incidental contact with walls and surfaces over time. This type of damage falls within the scope of fair wear and tear and is therefore not the tenant’s liability.
For the reasons set out above, namely that certain aspects of the claim have not been proven on the balance of probabilities and that the remaining alleged damages fall within fair wear and tear and are not the liability of the respondent, the claim is dismissed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Property damage Papakura

Key findings

Dispute theme: property damage

Property management

FAIR RENTALS LIMITED (applicant)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317980 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5317980?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317980?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317980?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12641968-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

For landlords & property managers

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.

Order a Tenantcheck →

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The applicant claims that the respondent caused damage to the walls in several areas of the property, including the wardrobes, hallway, lounge, and kitchen ceiling, and seeks compensation for the repair costs, as evidenced by a $920.00 invoice.

In support of the claim, the landlord provided pre-tenancy and post-tenancy inspection photographs. The pre-tenancy photographs do not show the areas identified as damaged in the post-tenancy photographs.

The respondent contends that the alleged damages were present at the commencement of the tenancy and that the post-tenancy photographs were taken from different angles and of areas not shown in the in-going inspection report.

Other damage, identified by the applicant in the invoice and accompanying photographs consist of minor dents and scratches and faded paint on the door frame. These are consistent with fair wear and tear. Such marks commonly arise from ordinary use and occupancy of the premises, including incidental contact with walls and surfaces over time. This type of damage falls within the scope of fair wear and tear and is therefore not the tenant’s liability.

For the reasons set out above, namely that certain aspects of the claim have not been proven on the balance of probabilities and that the remaining alleged damages fall within fair wear and tear and are not the liability of the respondent, the claim is dismissed.