What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5326541 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 5326541?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5326541?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5326541?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12925325-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5326541 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 5326541?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5326541?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5326541?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12925325-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5326541 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5326541 — net $1,828.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Restoration of damaged hardwood flooring	$1,800.00	Restoration of damaged hardwood flooring
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,828.00
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,828.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords’ names and identifying details.
Jan Debecker and Trude Hellesland to pay [The landlord/s] $1,828.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,828.00 Jan Debecker and Trude Hellesland: $1,172.00

Reasons

The parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 28 October 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 11 December 2021 and ended on 5 July 2025. The weekly rent was $790.00 and the bond paid was $3,000.00.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlords applied to the Tribunal seeking compensation of $2,300.00 for restoration of damaged hardwood flooring. The landlords seek authority for the amount awarded to be deducted from the bond and reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee.
The tenants oppose the claim and submit that the damage complained of constitutes fair wear and tear. They accept that some marks occurred during the tenancy but deny that the damage was careless or unlawful. They also submit that they took steps to mitigate damage once noticed and that they acted in good faith throughout the tenancy. The Landlords’ Position
The landlords submit that the hardwood flooring was professionally sanded and sealed immediately prior to the commencement of the tenancy and was in excellent condition at that time. They say that post-tenancy inspections revealed multiple deep gouges, worn-through areas, and damage penetrating the protective coating and timber substrate.
The landlords submit that the damage is localised to the dining and adjoining areas and is inconsistent with normal foot traffic or ordinary use. They rely on photographic evidence showing that high-traffic areas such as the entryway and kitchen remain largely undamaged, which they say supports the conclusion that the damage was caused by repeated careless movement of furniture without protective pads.
The landlords rely heavily on the written assessment of the flooring contractor who performed the original sanding and sealing. The contractor states that the extent and nature of the damage is unprecedented in his 25 years’ experience and is not consistent with normal residential use over a three-and-a-half-year tenancy. He states that full restoration is required, including sanding, resealing, and potentially replacing damaged boards.
The landlords also rely on correspondence from their insurer, Vero, which declined cover not because the damage was insignificant, but because it resulted from multiple incidents of careless conduct over time rather than a single insurable event. The landlords submit that this supports their position that the damage is substantial and tenant-caused.
The landlords seek compensation for full restoration of the damaged area and reimbursement of the filing fee. The Tenants’ Position
The tenants accept that the flooring sustained damage during the tenancy and express regret for this. They submit that the damage amounts to wear and tear, particularly given the length of the tenancy. They state that one area of damage was caused by a desk chair and that a mat was placed underneath once the damage was noticed. They say other marks were caused by dining chairs and were not noticed until the room was cleared at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants submit that the damage was not identified by the landlord during inspections shortly before handover or at the final inspection. They also rely on their overall conduct as tenants, submitting that they treated the property as their own and undertook significant unpaid work on the property, including storm clean- up and improvements to the yard.
The tenants submit that they acted in good faith and made an offer to contribute to the insurance excess. They say that being characterised as having acted unlawfully or carelessly has caused them distress and anxiety. Relevant Law
Under section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a tenant must not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises. Under section 40(1)(e)(iii), a tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
Section 49B provides that a tenant is liable for careless damage to the premises unless that damage is covered by the landlord’s insurance, in which case liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent. Where damage is intentional, or results from an imprisonable offence, the tenant is fully liable.
Fair wear and tear is not defined in the Act but has been described as deterioration or damage that occurs through reasonable use over time. Floors are intended to be walked on and some marking or surface wear can be expected during a residential tenancy.
The landlord bears the onus of proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy, that it exceeds fair wear and tear, and that it was caused by the tenant. Once that is established, the tenant bears the onus of proving that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally.
In assessing compensation, the Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord is entitled to be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred, but not to be better off. Analysis
There is no dispute that the hardwood flooring was damaged during the tenancy and that it was not in the same condition at the end of the tenancy as it was at the beginning. The issue is whether that damage exceeds fair wear and tear and, if so, whether it was caused carelessly by the tenants.
I place significant weight on the professional evidence of the flooring contractor who both installed and assessed the flooring. Unlike cases where assessments are made solely from photographs, this contractor had direct knowledge of the flooring at the start of the tenancy and inspected it post-tenancy. His evidence describes damage penetrating through the protective coating and into the timber itself, in areas not subject to heavy foot traffic. I accept his evidence that this type of wear would ordinarily be expected only after many years of heavy use, not in a corner of a dining area after approximately three and a half years.
I also place weight on the localisation of the damage. The photographic evidence shows that high-traffic areas remain relatively intact, while damage is concentrated in areas consistent with repeated movement of furniture. This supports the landlords’ submission that the damage resulted from repeated careless conduct rather than ordinary residential use.
The tenants accept that furniture was moved over the flooring and that protective mats were not used until after damage had occurred. While the tenants say the damage was not noticed immediately, the absence of reporting during the tenancy does not prevent a finding that the damage occurred or that it was careless. A reasonable and prudent tenant would be expected to take precautions to protect newly finished hardwood floors from repeated furniture movement.
I have considered the tenants’ submission that the damage was not identified during earlier inspections. Inspections are not forensic examinations, and damage concealed by furniture may reasonably go unnoticed until the property is vacated. This does not undermine the landlords’ claim.
I have also considered the tenants’ offer to contribute to the insurance excess and their submissions regarding goodwill and improvements made to the property. While these matters speak to the tenants’ overall conduct, they do not negate liability for proven careless damage.
The insurance correspondence does not detract from the landlords’ claim. The insurer declined cover because the damage resulted from multiple careless incidents over time. That position is consistent with tenant liability under section 49B and does not convert the damage into fair wear and tear.
I am satisfied that the landlords have proven on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the hardwood flooring exceeds fair wear and tear and was caused by repeated careless conduct by the tenants. Quantum and Betterment
In assessing quantum, the Tribunal must ensure that any award restores the landlords to the position they would have been in had the tenants complied with their obligations, but does not result in betterment.
I have taken into account accepted Tribunal authority that polished hardwood floors are a consumable surface finish and typically require re-sanding and re- sealing every three to five years, depending on use and maintenance. This means that some deterioration to the finish is expected over time and must be allowed for when assessing compensation.
In this case, the flooring was professionally sanded and sealed immediately prior to the commencement of the tenancy. The tenancy ran for approximately three years and seven months. Accordingly, the flooring had already undergone a substantial portion of its expected surface life by the end of the tenancy, and an allowance for depreciation is required.
However, the damage established in this case goes beyond the level of deterioration reasonably anticipated over that period. The evidence shows deep gouging, penetrative wear through the protective coating to bare timber, and localised damage in low-traffic areas. This damage is inconsistent with ordinary lifecycle wear and is indicative of repeated careless conduct rather than inevitable surface degradation.
The landlords seek $2,300.00 for restoration of the damaged flooring, including sanding, resealing, and potential board replacement. Allowing for reasonable depreciation over the tenancy period, but recognising that the flooring would not have required restoration at this time but for the tenants’ careless conduct, I consider a reduction of approximately 20–25 percent to be appropriate.
On the evidence, I assess fair compensation at $1,800.00, which appropriately reflects both depreciation and the need to avoid betterment, while ensuring the landlords are not left bearing the cost of damage beyond fair wear and tear. Bond, Filing Fee and Suppression Order
The bond of $3,000.00 is available to be applied towards the compensation awarded.
As the landlords have been substantially successful, reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee is appropriate and suppression of the landlord’s names and identifying details is granted. See sections 102(4)(b) and 95A(3) RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5326541 — net $1,828.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Restoration of damaged hardwood flooring	$1,800.00	Restoration of damaged hardwood flooring
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,828.00
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,828.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords’ names and identifying details.
Jan Debecker and Trude Hellesland to pay [The landlord/s] $1,828.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,828.00 Jan Debecker and Trude Hellesland: $1,172.00

Reasons

The parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 28 October 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 11 December 2021 and ended on 5 July 2025. The weekly rent was $790.00 and the bond paid was $3,000.00.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlords applied to the Tribunal seeking compensation of $2,300.00 for restoration of damaged hardwood flooring. The landlords seek authority for the amount awarded to be deducted from the bond and reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee.
The tenants oppose the claim and submit that the damage complained of constitutes fair wear and tear. They accept that some marks occurred during the tenancy but deny that the damage was careless or unlawful. They also submit that they took steps to mitigate damage once noticed and that they acted in good faith throughout the tenancy. The Landlords’ Position
The landlords submit that the hardwood flooring was professionally sanded and sealed immediately prior to the commencement of the tenancy and was in excellent condition at that time. They say that post-tenancy inspections revealed multiple deep gouges, worn-through areas, and damage penetrating the protective coating and timber substrate.
The landlords submit that the damage is localised to the dining and adjoining areas and is inconsistent with normal foot traffic or ordinary use. They rely on photographic evidence showing that high-traffic areas such as the entryway and kitchen remain largely undamaged, which they say supports the conclusion that the damage was caused by repeated careless movement of furniture without protective pads.
The landlords rely heavily on the written assessment of the flooring contractor who performed the original sanding and sealing. The contractor states that the extent and nature of the damage is unprecedented in his 25 years’ experience and is not consistent with normal residential use over a three-and-a-half-year tenancy. He states that full restoration is required, including sanding, resealing, and potentially replacing damaged boards.
The landlords also rely on correspondence from their insurer, Vero, which declined cover not because the damage was insignificant, but because it resulted from multiple incidents of careless conduct over time rather than a single insurable event. The landlords submit that this supports their position that the damage is substantial and tenant-caused.
The landlords seek compensation for full restoration of the damaged area and reimbursement of the filing fee. The Tenants’ Position
The tenants accept that the flooring sustained damage during the tenancy and express regret for this. They submit that the damage amounts to wear and tear, particularly given the length of the tenancy. They state that one area of damage was caused by a desk chair and that a mat was placed underneath once the damage was noticed. They say other marks were caused by dining chairs and were not noticed until the room was cleared at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants submit that the damage was not identified by the landlord during inspections shortly before handover or at the final inspection. They also rely on their overall conduct as tenants, submitting that they treated the property as their own and undertook significant unpaid work on the property, including storm clean- up and improvements to the yard.
The tenants submit that they acted in good faith and made an offer to contribute to the insurance excess. They say that being characterised as having acted unlawfully or carelessly has caused them distress and anxiety. Relevant Law
Under section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a tenant must not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises. Under section 40(1)(e)(iii), a tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
Section 49B provides that a tenant is liable for careless damage to the premises unless that damage is covered by the landlord’s insurance, in which case liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent. Where damage is intentional, or results from an imprisonable offence, the tenant is fully liable.
Fair wear and tear is not defined in the Act but has been described as deterioration or damage that occurs through reasonable use over time. Floors are intended to be walked on and some marking or surface wear can be expected during a residential tenancy.
The landlord bears the onus of proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy, that it exceeds fair wear and tear, and that it was caused by the tenant. Once that is established, the tenant bears the onus of proving that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally.
In assessing compensation, the Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord is entitled to be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred, but not to be better off. Analysis
There is no dispute that the hardwood flooring was damaged during the tenancy and that it was not in the same condition at the end of the tenancy as it was at the beginning. The issue is whether that damage exceeds fair wear and tear and, if so, whether it was caused carelessly by the tenants.
I place significant weight on the professional evidence of the flooring contractor who both installed and assessed the flooring. Unlike cases where assessments are made solely from photographs, this contractor had direct knowledge of the flooring at the start of the tenancy and inspected it post-tenancy. His evidence describes damage penetrating through the protective coating and into the timber itself, in areas not subject to heavy foot traffic. I accept his evidence that this type of wear would ordinarily be expected only after many years of heavy use, not in a corner of a dining area after approximately three and a half years.
I also place weight on the localisation of the damage. The photographic evidence shows that high-traffic areas remain relatively intact, while damage is concentrated in areas consistent with repeated movement of furniture. This supports the landlords’ submission that the damage resulted from repeated careless conduct rather than ordinary residential use.
The tenants accept that furniture was moved over the flooring and that protective mats were not used until after damage had occurred. While the tenants say the damage was not noticed immediately, the absence of reporting during the tenancy does not prevent a finding that the damage occurred or that it was careless. A reasonable and prudent tenant would be expected to take precautions to protect newly finished hardwood floors from repeated furniture movement.
I have considered the tenants’ submission that the damage was not identified during earlier inspections. Inspections are not forensic examinations, and damage concealed by furniture may reasonably go unnoticed until the property is vacated. This does not undermine the landlords’ claim.
I have also considered the tenants’ offer to contribute to the insurance excess and their submissions regarding goodwill and improvements made to the property. While these matters speak to the tenants’ overall conduct, they do not negate liability for proven careless damage.
The insurance correspondence does not detract from the landlords’ claim. The insurer declined cover because the damage resulted from multiple careless incidents over time. That position is consistent with tenant liability under section 49B and does not convert the damage into fair wear and tear.
I am satisfied that the landlords have proven on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the hardwood flooring exceeds fair wear and tear and was caused by repeated careless conduct by the tenants. Quantum and Betterment
In assessing quantum, the Tribunal must ensure that any award restores the landlords to the position they would have been in had the tenants complied with their obligations, but does not result in betterment.
I have taken into account accepted Tribunal authority that polished hardwood floors are a consumable surface finish and typically require re-sanding and re- sealing every three to five years, depending on use and maintenance. This means that some deterioration to the finish is expected over time and must be allowed for when assessing compensation.
In this case, the flooring was professionally sanded and sealed immediately prior to the commencement of the tenancy. The tenancy ran for approximately three years and seven months. Accordingly, the flooring had already undergone a substantial portion of its expected surface life by the end of the tenancy, and an allowance for depreciation is required.
However, the damage established in this case goes beyond the level of deterioration reasonably anticipated over that period. The evidence shows deep gouging, penetrative wear through the protective coating to bare timber, and localised damage in low-traffic areas. This damage is inconsistent with ordinary lifecycle wear and is indicative of repeated careless conduct rather than inevitable surface degradation.
The landlords seek $2,300.00 for restoration of the damaged flooring, including sanding, resealing, and potential board replacement. Allowing for reasonable depreciation over the tenancy period, but recognising that the flooring would not have required restoration at this time but for the tenants’ careless conduct, I consider a reduction of approximately 20–25 percent to be appropriate.
On the evidence, I assess fair compensation at $1,800.00, which appropriately reflects both depreciation and the need to avoid betterment, while ensuring the landlords are not left bearing the cost of damage beyond fair wear and tear. Bond, Filing Fee and Suppression Order
The bond of $3,000.00 is available to be applied towards the compensation awarded.
As the landlords have been substantially successful, reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee is appropriate and suppression of the landlord’s names and identifying details is granted. See sections 102(4)(b) and 95A(3) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5326541 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5326541 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions