What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327693 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 5327693?

Previous Order Application 5327693 D…: $9,062.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327693?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13073147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327693 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 5327693?

Previous Order Application 5327693 D…: $9,062.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327693?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13073147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5327693 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327693 — net $19,862.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5327693 dated 28/11/2025	$9,062.95	Previous order application 5327693 dated 28/11/2025
Insurance excesses	$10,800.00	Insurance excesses
Net award	$19,862.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$19,862.95

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant.

On 28 November 2025 I made orders for compensation for rent arrears, cleaning, rubbish removal, carpet cleaning and replacement , water blasting and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord was also claiming 9 insurance excesses for damage done to the premises. The work had not yet taken place, and so the orders on those matters were deferred until the cost was known.

As previously set out, 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 RTA.

The insurance company assessed the damage at a total of $46,428.37, from which 9 excesses of $1,200 were deducted, leading to a total payout of $35,628.37. This was for: a. gouges and cuts to kitchen bench b. damage to kitchen cabinetry – broken drawers and missing handles c. holes and ripped wallpaper in lounge and four bedrooms d. gib and wall damage in two bedrooms e. missing mirror, damage to sliding wardrobe doors.

This damage was visible in photographs provided by the landlord.

The landlord has spent the last two months undertaking repairs. They submitted a schedule of costs, including their time preparing and painting, totalling $63,617.77.

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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Therefore, they consider that an order for reimbursement of the insurance excesses is fair. As explained in my previous order, some rooms have been treated as having more than one incident. There are two for the kitchen and three for the main bedroom.

It is important that the landlord proves the actual loss incurred. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. I expressed concern that the landlords have taken this opportunity to renovate and refurbish the premises. The tenants are not responsible for that.

The landlords accept that the property is now better than when the tenancy started, but they have spent nearly $30,000 above the insurance payout. The nature of some of the damage meant replacement was required rather than repair. For example, they could not replace the kitchen bench without taking all of the bench and kitchen units out. This led to repairs being needed to the walls because of removing it.

Because there was damage to more than one wall in four bedrooms and the lounge, it was reasonable that the landlords stripped the wallpaper and painted each room. There was a large hole in one bedroom and smaller holes in other rooms. The landlords have provided a large number of receipts and a schedule of their time and invoiced work. They have attempted to be reasonable.

In the absence of any opposition from the tenant, I have decided that ordering the insurance excesses of $10,800 is reasonable compensation.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327693 — net $19,862.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5327693 dated 28/11/2025	$9,062.95	Previous order application 5327693 dated 28/11/2025
Insurance excesses	$10,800.00	Insurance excesses
Net award	$19,862.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$19,862.95

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant.
On 28 November 2025 I made orders for compensation for rent arrears, cleaning, rubbish removal, carpet cleaning and replacement , water blasting and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord was also claiming 9 insurance excesses for damage done to the premises. The work had not yet taken place, and so the orders on those matters were deferred until the cost was known.
As previously set out, 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 RTA.
The insurance company assessed the damage at a total of $46,428.37, from which 9 excesses of $1,200 were deducted, leading to a total payout of $35,628.37. This was for: a. gouges and cuts to kitchen bench b. damage to kitchen cabinetry – broken drawers and missing handles c. holes and ripped wallpaper in lounge and four bedrooms d. gib and wall damage in two bedrooms e. missing mirror, damage to sliding wardrobe doors.
This damage was visible in photographs provided by the landlord.
The landlord has spent the last two months undertaking repairs. They submitted a schedule of costs, including their time preparing and painting, totalling $63,617.77.
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Therefore, they consider that an order for reimbursement of the insurance excesses is fair. As explained in my previous order, some rooms have been treated as having more than one incident. There are two for the kitchen and three for the main bedroom.
It is important that the landlord proves the actual loss incurred. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. I expressed concern that the landlords have taken this opportunity to renovate and refurbish the premises. The tenants are not responsible for that.
The landlords accept that the property is now better than when the tenancy started, but they have spent nearly $30,000 above the insurance payout. The nature of some of the damage meant replacement was required rather than repair. For example, they could not replace the kitchen bench without taking all of the bench and kitchen units out. This led to repairs being needed to the walls because of removing it.
Because there was damage to more than one wall in four bedrooms and the lounge, it was reasonable that the landlords stripped the wallpaper and painted each room. There was a large hole in one bedroom and smaller holes in other rooms. The landlords have provided a large number of receipts and a schedule of their time and invoiced work. They have attempted to be reasonable.
In the absence of any opposition from the tenant, I have decided that ordering the insurance excesses of $10,800 is reasonable compensation.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327693 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327693 — 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