What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328462 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5328462?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328462?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12904419-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328462 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5328462?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328462?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12904419-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

63 Coopers Road, Leeston, RD 2, Leeston 7682 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328462 — Property damage

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,364.34 (5658882-006) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenants dispute these claims. Background
The tenancy commenced on 15 October 2023 and the tenants vacated on around 29 June 2025.
The landlord says that during the tenancy, the tenants damaged the carpet by allowing carpet beetle to destroy a portion of the carpet, resulting in the entire area of carpet requiring replacement. They say this likely occurred through the tenants storing firewood in a container beside the fireplace and not regularly moving the container, vacuuming underneath or observing the emerging damage so it could be stopped.
The landlord has provided photographs of the damaged carpet, together with a quote for carpet replacement of $3,730.00.
The tenants dispute the claims and says that they had assumed storing wood in the solid container would be safe and that any damage was accidental. They have provided evidence in support of their response.
The tenants also say that the carpet was quite old, and they do not believe that it is fair that they pay the entire carpet replacement amount. Civil burden of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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, 1 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The law

A landlord must prove that the tenants caused the damage (causation), that the 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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck. 2
The Tribunal will also only award compensation for damage or loss, if the loss or damage was a foreseeable consequence of the breach. 3 Discussion
The landlord says that the carpet has been damaged by carpet beetle, however, I do not have any third-party evidence to confirm this. I cannot independently tell from the photographs that the carpet has been damaged by an insect 2 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 3 Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 2 CLR 517. infestation. Although the photographs show that the carpet is fraying in the corner beside the fireplace, there could be any number of reasons that this has occurred.
Secondly, the landlord says that the carpet beetle has likely come from: How the tenants stored the wood; their failure to regularly vacuum; and their failure to identify the carpet beetle early so the landlord could act before it spread.
However, I have no other evidence that carpet beetle has come from the storage of wood or any other actions of the tenant. Assumptions have been made around the cause as submitted by the landlord, but I must be more certain than not, and nothing provided assists me to reach that level of certainty.
Thirdly, damages must be a natural and probable consequence of any breach and not something that is too remote or unexpected. I consider that it was reasonable for the tenants to store firewood in a container next to a fireplace and was not careless or intentional. In my view, even if they had failed to lift the storage box and vacuum directly under it regularly, it was reasonable for them to assume the carpet underneath was protected through their means of storage. I have no evidence that they were ever advised otherwise, during routine inspections for example.
I consider that the damage was not an expected outcome of their actions. It was therefore too remote and not foreseeable enough.
For these reasons, the claims against the tenants for the carpet damage must fail and the application is dismissed. The remaining bond is accordingly refunded to the tenants.
The tenants had raised other issues in their submissions, however, as explained at the hearing there was no application made in respect of these and I have not considered any further. R Harvey-Lane 23 December 2025

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenants dispute these claims. Background

The tenancy commenced on 15 October 2023 and the tenants vacated on around 29 June 2025.

The landlord says that during the tenancy, the tenants damaged the carpet by allowing carpet beetle to destroy a portion of the carpet, resulting in the entire area of carpet requiring replacement. They say this likely occurred through the tenants storing firewood in a container beside the fireplace and not regularly moving the container, vacuuming underneath or observing the emerging damage so it could be stopped.

The landlord has provided photographs of the damaged carpet, together with a quote for carpet replacement of $3,730.00.

The tenants dispute the claims and says that they had assumed storing wood in the solid container would be safe and that any damage was accidental. They have provided evidence in support of their response.

The tenants also say that the carpet was quite old, and they do not believe that it is fair that they pay the entire carpet replacement amount. Civil burden of proof

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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, 1 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.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The law

A landlord must prove that the tenants caused the damage (causation), that the 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.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

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. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck. 2

The Tribunal will also only award compensation for damage or loss, if the loss or damage was a foreseeable consequence of the breach. 3 Discussion

The landlord says that the carpet has been damaged by carpet beetle, however, I do not have any third-party evidence to confirm this. I cannot independently tell from the photographs that the carpet has been damaged by an insect 2 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 3 Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 2 CLR 517. infestation. Although the photographs show that the carpet is fraying in the corner beside the fireplace, there could be any number of reasons that this has occurred.

Secondly, the landlord says that the carpet beetle has likely come from: How the tenants stored the wood; their failure to regularly vacuum; and their failure to identify the carpet beetle early so the landlord could act before it spread.

However, I have no other evidence that carpet beetle has come from the storage of wood or any other actions of the tenant. Assumptions have been made around the cause as submitted by the landlord, but I must be more certain than not, and nothing provided assists me to reach that level of certainty.

Thirdly, damages must be a natural and probable consequence of any breach and not something that is too remote or unexpected. I consider that it was reasonable for the tenants to store firewood in a container next to a fireplace and was not careless or intentional. In my view, even if they had failed to lift the storage box and vacuum directly under it regularly, it was reasonable for them to assume the carpet underneath was protected through their means of storage. I have no evidence that they were ever advised otherwise, during routine inspections for example.

I consider that the damage was not an expected outcome of their actions. It was therefore too remote and not foreseeable enough.

For these reasons, the claims against the tenants for the carpet damage must fail and the application is dismissed. The remaining bond is accordingly refunded to the tenants.

The tenants had raised other issues in their submissions, however, as explained at the hearing there was no application made in respect of these and I have not considered any further. R Harvey-Lane 23 December 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328462 — Property damage at 63 Coopers Road, Leeston, RD 2, Leeston 7682

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328462 — Property damage at 63 Coopers Road, Leeston, RD 2, Leeston 7682

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328462 — Property damage at 63 Coopers Road, Leeston, RD 2, Leeston 7682

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328462 — Property damage at 63 Coopers Road, Leeston, RD 2, Leeston 7682

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.