What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5325462 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 5325462?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $546.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325462?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12636280-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5325462 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 5325462?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $546.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325462?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12636280-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 106, 180 Willis Street, Te Aro, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5325462 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5325462 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to walls	$546.25	Repairs to walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names.
[The tenant/s] must pay Wellington City Council Limited $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre will pay the remaining bond to the landlord.

Reasons

Both parties attended the videoconference hearing on 30 October 2025.
The tenancy started on 22 August 2023 and ended on 6 July 2025. At the end of the tenancy the weekly rent was $619.00.
On 18 August 2025, the landlord applied for the cost of repairs to the walls in the sum of $546.25. This amount is held at the Bond Centre as the remaining part of the bond. Relevant Law
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
Fair wear and tear is damage caused by the normal use of premises. Tenants are not liable for fair wear and tear.
If damage 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.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent.
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. Analysis
The landlord said the premises were newly renovated prior to the tenancy. The walls were smooth and brand new, and the tenants were the first to move in. At final inspection there were a couple of dents in the lounge and a couple in the bedrooms. They were small, perhaps 1.5cm in length.
The tenants referred to a photograph dated 24 August 2023, taken by their young son who was playing with a phone. The photograph was said to show pre-existing damage to the walls.
The tenants referred to verbal advice from Bunnings and an email from a painting contractor in support of their view that the damage was caused by poor quality work and was pre-existing. In their email of 10 July 2025, the tenants said the Bunnings paint specialist advised them that the discolouration was consistent with “poor-quality or insufficient paint application”. The email from the painting contractor is hard to follow but suggests that the walls had been repainted without filling the holes. The tenants said that the paint wear of the dents matched the surrounding area, confirming they existed prior to the tenancy.
There is an ingoing inspection report but no photographs showing the entry condition of the premises. The report, which is dated 22 August 2023, does not identify any problems. However, the tenants said there was no walk-around with the property manager and they signed the report because they were directed to do so. In an email dated 11 July 2025, the property manager who conducted the inspection (who no longer works for the landlord) stated: “There was no prior damage to the apartment. If there was it would have been recorded on your Pre-Inspection report...”.
The tenants provided photographs of the property after they had cleaned it and before vacating. I acknowledge that the photographs show a reasonably clean and tidy property with no obvious wall damage. The landlord noted that minor damage may not be visible in photographs taken from a distance.
It is possible that the damage, or some of it, was pre-existing. The 24 August 2023 photograph does show two small dents or scratches. However, it is difficult to reconcile the existence of widespread pre-existing damage with the absence of any note on the ingoing inspection report, or with the renovation which had taken place prior to moving in. I am not convinced that any conclusions can be drawn from a comparison of the condition of the paint in the dents compared to the surrounding area. If the paint wear is matching, if anything this suggests (to me, anyway) that the walls were damaged after they were repainted. I find that damage was caused during the tenancy.
I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The invoice obtained by the landlord stated that there was damage on 3 bedroom walls and 2 living room walls, which needed to be filled, sanded, and painted. The damage was therefore reasonably extensive (extending to more than one room) and relatively deep, requiring more than a new coat of paint. One of the landlord’s photographs showed many small scratch marks on a concentrated area of wall. It is difficult to view such areas as a normal incident of reasonable use, because in my view it goes beyond the kinds of scraping and discolouration that might be expected to occur over time.
For these reasons, I find that the property was damaged during the tenancy, the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not discharged liability. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
The landlord’s application has been successful. The filing fee is awarded.
The tenants requested suppression. I exercise my discretion to grant suppression. This was a low-value dispute about minor damage, and I simply take a different view to the tenants about whether it was fair wear and tear. The tenants’ privacy interest outweighs the public interest in open justice in these circumstances.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5325462 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to walls	$546.25	Repairs to walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names.
[The tenant/s] must pay Wellington City Council Limited $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre will pay the remaining bond to the landlord.

Reasons

Both parties attended the videoconference hearing on 30 October 2025.
The tenancy started on 22 August 2023 and ended on 6 July 2025. At the end of the tenancy the weekly rent was $619.00.
On 18 August 2025, the landlord applied for the cost of repairs to the walls in the sum of $546.25. This amount is held at the Bond Centre as the remaining part of the bond. Relevant Law
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
Fair wear and tear is damage caused by the normal use of premises. Tenants are not liable for fair wear and tear.
If damage 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.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent.
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. Analysis
The landlord said the premises were newly renovated prior to the tenancy. The walls were smooth and brand new, and the tenants were the first to move in. At final inspection there were a couple of dents in the lounge and a couple in the bedrooms. They were small, perhaps 1.5cm in length.
The tenants referred to a photograph dated 24 August 2023, taken by their young son who was playing with a phone. The photograph was said to show pre-existing damage to the walls.
The tenants referred to verbal advice from Bunnings and an email from a painting contractor in support of their view that the damage was caused by poor quality work and was pre-existing. In their email of 10 July 2025, the tenants said the Bunnings paint specialist advised them that the discolouration was consistent with “poor-quality or insufficient paint application”. The email from the painting contractor is hard to follow but suggests that the walls had been repainted without filling the holes. The tenants said that the paint wear of the dents matched the surrounding area, confirming they existed prior to the tenancy.
There is an ingoing inspection report but no photographs showing the entry condition of the premises. The report, which is dated 22 August 2023, does not identify any problems. However, the tenants said there was no walk-around with the property manager and they signed the report because they were directed to do so. In an email dated 11 July 2025, the property manager who conducted the inspection (who no longer works for the landlord) stated: “There was no prior damage to the apartment. If there was it would have been recorded on your Pre-Inspection report...”.
The tenants provided photographs of the property after they had cleaned it and before vacating. I acknowledge that the photographs show a reasonably clean and tidy property with no obvious wall damage. The landlord noted that minor damage may not be visible in photographs taken from a distance.
It is possible that the damage, or some of it, was pre-existing. The 24 August 2023 photograph does show two small dents or scratches. However, it is difficult to reconcile the existence of widespread pre-existing damage with the absence of any note on the ingoing inspection report, or with the renovation which had taken place prior to moving in. I am not convinced that any conclusions can be drawn from a comparison of the condition of the paint in the dents compared to the surrounding area. If the paint wear is matching, if anything this suggests (to me, anyway) that the walls were damaged after they were repainted. I find that damage was caused during the tenancy.
I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The invoice obtained by the landlord stated that there was damage on 3 bedroom walls and 2 living room walls, which needed to be filled, sanded, and painted. The damage was therefore reasonably extensive (extending to more than one room) and relatively deep, requiring more than a new coat of paint. One of the landlord’s photographs showed many small scratch marks on a concentrated area of wall. It is difficult to view such areas as a normal incident of reasonable use, because in my view it goes beyond the kinds of scraping and discolouration that might be expected to occur over time.
For these reasons, I find that the property was damaged during the tenancy, the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not discharged liability. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
The landlord’s application has been successful. The filing fee is awarded.
The tenants requested suppression. I exercise my discretion to grant suppression. This was a low-value dispute about minor damage, and I simply take a different view to the tenants about whether it was fair wear and tear. The tenants’ privacy interest outweighs the public interest in open justice in these circumstances.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325462 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 106, 180 Willis Street, Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325462 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 106, 180 Willis Street, Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions