What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318362 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $460.00 (6407242-006) to Baseden

How much money was awarded in case 5318362?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318362?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318362?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12624244-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318362 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $460.00 (6407242-006) to Baseden

How much money was awarded in case 5318362?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318362?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318362?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12624244-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 2305, 10 Commerce Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5318362 — Property damage

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $460.00 (6407242-006) to Baseden Property Management Limited Thomas Baseden immediately.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Baseden Property Management Limited Thomas Baseden $460.00 from the bond for damage to the study wall.

Reasons

Introduction

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] (the Tenant) lived at Unit 2305, 10 Commerce Street, Auckland Central (the Premises) for just over four years. The Premises is owned by YuQuan Fu (the Owner) and managed by Baseden Property Management Limited (Property Manager) (together, the Landlord).
The Landlord says after the tenancy ended in July 2025, the Landlord discovered damage to a wall in the study. The Landlord seeks compensation of $460 for the cost of repainting the wall. The parties agreed to the refund of $1,740 of the bond to the Tenant. The remaining $460 is held in dispute pending determination of the Landlord’s claim by the Tribunal.
The issue I have to determine is: a. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage to the study wall?
On 28 October 2025, the Property Manager and Mr [The tenant/s] attended the remote hearing, Mr [The tenant/s] did not attend. Mr [The tenant/s] (father to [The tenant/s]) confirmed he represented both parties. The Tribunal’s approach to the issues
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage to the study wall?

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. 1
The tenancy commenced on 15 March 2021. The Landlord produced in-going inspection photographs taken on 13 March 2021 which show the Premises were in near new condition. The Landlord stated the Tenant was the second tenant to occupy the Premises since it was built or fully renovated.
The tenancy ended on 12 July 2025. The Landlord produced out-going inspection photographs taken the same day which show an area on the lower wall in the study had become discoloured or stained.
The Landlord produced an invoice dated 27 July 2025 for $460 from a contractor which states the contractor primed and repainted the study wall.
The Tenant does not dispute that the wall became discoloured during the tenancy. The Tenant says the area was pointed out to him during the final inspection. The Tenant attempted to wipe the area down with water but says that seemed to make the stain darker.
The Tenant says the discolouration to the study wall was fair wear and tear. The Tenant says the room was used as an office by his adult son predominantly, and also himself on occasion. The Tenant says a large desk was situated in front of the stained wall, and the desk was open at the point where the stain on the wall was situated. The Landlord theorised the staining may have been where feet rested against the wall while a person sat at the desk, but the Tenant disputed that was possible given the depth of the desk from the wall. The Tenant says he did not notice the stain until it was pointed out at the final inspection – which is unsurprising because the large desk obscured any view of the stained wall until the Tenant had moved his furniture.
The Tenant says the Landlord has not proved the damage was more than fair wear and tear, and if he has, the Tenant says the Tenant did not carelessly or intentionally cause the damage.
The Tenant also challenges the reliability of the contractor’s invoice dated 27 July 2025 and submits there is no proof the Landlord paid the invoice. The Tenant queries why the invoice uses the same description as the quote, and submits that because the invoice refers to “2 – 3 topcoats” rather than a specific number (as the Tenant says would be expected in a final invoice) it is not reliable evidence that the work has actually been done. 1 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
It is not in dispute that the damage was caused during the tenancy and I am satisfied it was. I am satisfied the stained area on the lower wall of the study is more than fair wear and tear as the area is significantly darker than the rest of the wall, and the area affected is fairly large. I accept that the wall was in good, near new, condition at the start of the tenancy, and while some wear over more than four years of tenancy is to be expected, the size and extent of the staining on the study wall is more than could be termed fair wear and tear.
The Tenant has not proved they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. The Tenant’s evidence that he was unaware of the damage until the desk was moved suggests it was caused carelessly. I am satisfied the stain was more than likely caused by users of the desk resting their feet on either part of the desk near the wall, or against the wall itself.
The Tenant’s challenge to the reliability of the invoice is speculative. There is no evidence to suggest the repair work has not been completed. In the absence of any evidence suggesting the work has not been done (such as evidence from the current tenants) I accept the Landlord’s statement that the work has been completed, supported by a copy of the final invoice. I do not place any weight on the wording used by the contractor in the invoice as such details are often not the highest concern of those completing such work.
The Landlord has provided evidence of the actual cost incurred. I make an order that the remaining bond of $460 be refunded to the Landlord as compensation for repairs to the study wall damaged by the Tenant.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $460.00 (6407242-006) to Baseden Property Management Limited Thomas Baseden immediately.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Baseden Property Management Limited Thomas Baseden $460.00 from the bond for damage to the study wall.

Reasons

Introduction

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] (the Tenant) lived at Unit 2305, 10 Commerce Street, Auckland Central (the Premises) for just over four years. The Premises is owned by YuQuan Fu (the Owner) and managed by Baseden Property Management Limited (Property Manager) (together, the Landlord).
The Landlord says after the tenancy ended in July 2025, the Landlord discovered damage to a wall in the study. The Landlord seeks compensation of $460 for the cost of repainting the wall. The parties agreed to the refund of $1,740 of the bond to the Tenant. The remaining $460 is held in dispute pending determination of the Landlord’s claim by the Tribunal.
The issue I have to determine is: a. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage to the study wall?
On 28 October 2025, the Property Manager and Mr [The tenant/s] attended the remote hearing, Mr [The tenant/s] did not attend. Mr [The tenant/s] (father to [The tenant/s]) confirmed he represented both parties. The Tribunal’s approach to the issues
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage to the study wall?

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. 1
The tenancy commenced on 15 March 2021. The Landlord produced in-going inspection photographs taken on 13 March 2021 which show the Premises were in near new condition. The Landlord stated the Tenant was the second tenant to occupy the Premises since it was built or fully renovated.
The tenancy ended on 12 July 2025. The Landlord produced out-going inspection photographs taken the same day which show an area on the lower wall in the study had become discoloured or stained.
The Landlord produced an invoice dated 27 July 2025 for $460 from a contractor which states the contractor primed and repainted the study wall.
The Tenant does not dispute that the wall became discoloured during the tenancy. The Tenant says the area was pointed out to him during the final inspection. The Tenant attempted to wipe the area down with water but says that seemed to make the stain darker.
The Tenant says the discolouration to the study wall was fair wear and tear. The Tenant says the room was used as an office by his adult son predominantly, and also himself on occasion. The Tenant says a large desk was situated in front of the stained wall, and the desk was open at the point where the stain on the wall was situated. The Landlord theorised the staining may have been where feet rested against the wall while a person sat at the desk, but the Tenant disputed that was possible given the depth of the desk from the wall. The Tenant says he did not notice the stain until it was pointed out at the final inspection – which is unsurprising because the large desk obscured any view of the stained wall until the Tenant had moved his furniture.
The Tenant says the Landlord has not proved the damage was more than fair wear and tear, and if he has, the Tenant says the Tenant did not carelessly or intentionally cause the damage.
The Tenant also challenges the reliability of the contractor’s invoice dated 27 July 2025 and submits there is no proof the Landlord paid the invoice. The Tenant queries why the invoice uses the same description as the quote, and submits that because the invoice refers to “2 – 3 topcoats” rather than a specific number (as the Tenant says would be expected in a final invoice) it is not reliable evidence that the work has actually been done. 1 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
It is not in dispute that the damage was caused during the tenancy and I am satisfied it was. I am satisfied the stained area on the lower wall of the study is more than fair wear and tear as the area is significantly darker than the rest of the wall, and the area affected is fairly large. I accept that the wall was in good, near new, condition at the start of the tenancy, and while some wear over more than four years of tenancy is to be expected, the size and extent of the staining on the study wall is more than could be termed fair wear and tear.
The Tenant has not proved they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. The Tenant’s evidence that he was unaware of the damage until the desk was moved suggests it was caused carelessly. I am satisfied the stain was more than likely caused by users of the desk resting their feet on either part of the desk near the wall, or against the wall itself.
The Tenant’s challenge to the reliability of the invoice is speculative. There is no evidence to suggest the repair work has not been completed. In the absence of any evidence suggesting the work has not been done (such as evidence from the current tenants) I accept the Landlord’s statement that the work has been completed, supported by a copy of the final invoice. I do not place any weight on the wording used by the contractor in the invoice as such details are often not the highest concern of those completing such work.
The Landlord has provided evidence of the actual cost incurred. I make an order that the remaining bond of $460 be refunded to the Landlord as compensation for repairs to the study wall damaged by the Tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318362 — Property damage at Unit 2305, 10 Commerce Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318362 — Property damage at Unit 2305, 10 Commerce Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage to the study wall?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage to the study wall?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions