Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5329640 — Property damage at 94A Coronation Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025
Decided 18 March 2026 · Published 18 March 2026 · Application 5329640
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Rent arrears
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
B King
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,273.29
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $573.29
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears | $258.57 | Rent arrears | |
| Water rates | $114.72 | Water rates | |
| Fence repairs (excess | $550.00 | Fence repairs (excess | |
| Exemplary Damages: fail to provide insurance policy | $350.00 | fail to provide insurance policy | |
| Total award | $923.29 | $350.00 | |
| Net award | $573.29 | ||
| Bond | $1,424.43 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $573.29 |
Claims and awards for application 5329640 — net $573.29 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears
- Amount
- $258.57
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears
Water rates
- Amount
- $114.72
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Water rates
Fence repairs (excess
- Amount
- $550.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Fence repairs (excess
Exemplary Damages: fail to provide insurance policy
- Amount
- $350.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- fail to provide insurance policy
Total award
Landlord $923.29 · Tenant $350.00
Net award
Landlord $573.29
Bond
Landlord $1,424.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $573.29
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Both parties have had success with claims and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
- Saad Shahzad Malik and Rabia Saad Malik must pay Idea Home Property Management Limited $573.29 from the bond, calculated below:
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,424.43 (5061668-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Idea Home Property Management Limited: $573.29 Saad Shahzad Malik and Rabia Saad Malik: $851.14
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Background
- On 20 August 2025 the tenants applied for a refund of their bond for the tenancy, which ended on 11 August 2025.
- That claim was scheduled for hearing on 20 November 2025. Immediately before that hearing, the landlord applied for rent arrears and compensation as follows: a. $258.57 rent arrears, b. $65.86 water rates, c. $1,100.00 compensation for a concrete fence.
- The Tribunal was not able to consider those claims because they were filed so late and the tenants hadn’t seen them, so the hearing was adjourned. The Order made on 20 November paid the undisputed part of the bond ($895.57) to the tenants. The part of the bond claimed by the landlord ($1,424.43), remains held at the Bond Centre
- The tenants do not dispute the claims for rent arrears and water rates.
- The dispute is about the landlord’s claim for the cost of repairs to a concrete fence which was accidentally damaged by the tenants early in the tenancy.
What happened?
- Around the beginning of the tenancy in August 2024, the tenants accidentally damaged the concrete fence at the front driveway into the property, with their car, which was also damaged.
- They advised the landlord and notified their insurers, AA.
- AA’s response on 5 September, which was copied to the property manager was, “This incident falls under the residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2019. The act stipulates the maximum liability for accidental or careless damage caused by a tenant to the landlords’ property is the lesser of: four weeks rent, the cost of repairs or the landlord’s excess. The landlord is also obligated under the act to provide the tenant the details for the insurance policy held on the premises and the applicable excess”.
- After several exchanges between AA, the tenant and the property manager, the property manager provided confirmation that the excess on the landlord’s insurance with AMI was $550.00. AA advised the tenants (and copied to the property manager) on 9 September, “....based on the sums provided, you would be liable to pay $550.00 to the landlord. We will make payment to you – minus your excess [$500.00] for you then to pay $550.00 to your property manager or landlord.”
- The $50.00 difference was paid to the tenants by AA on 10 September. The tenants did not pay $550.00 to the landlord.
- On 12 September the property manager e-mailed AA, “Regarding the landlord’s insurance, the insurance covers the house, basement and garage but not for the fence driveway and garden. The landlord’s insurance will not claim this for the tenant. The insurance policy attached for your reference.”
- The attached document was the insurance policy schedule, which notes the insured asset as, “The house situated at 2/94 Coronation Road Papatoetoe, Auckland Floor area of dwelling including basement/ attached garage – 60m 2 Number of dwellings – 1”.
- On 16 September the tenants e-mailed the property manager, “I think the insurance company AA is wanting the landlord’s policy and who the insurer is etc to see if the fence is covered or not...”. Then on the 19 th they asked again, , “...can you please provide the insurance policy to AA Insurance for them to pay out for the fence repair work.” To which the property manager replied on the same day, “I am still waiting for the AMI’s reply by writing. I will let you know as soon as I hear from them”.
- The tenants followed up again on 30 September, then on 31 October, “Any update on the AMI insurance? Since its been a long time don’t want any issues in the future in regards to this.”
- The next communication seems to be after the tenancy had ended in August 2025. In reply to the tenants’ request to have the bond refunded, the property manager replied, “I have been reminded that your vehicle damaged the concrete boundary fence when you moved into the property. The repair cost is $1,100.00. The property insurer has confirmed that fence is not covered under the policy and as the damage was caused by your vehicle, hence the cost is your responsibility. Accordingly, we will deduct $1,100.00 plus GST from your bond when lodging the bond refund with Tenancy Services”.
- The landlord has never provided the full policy wording for the landlord’s insurance to the tenants or the tenants’ insurer. It has not been provided to the Tribunal either.
- The property manager’s evidence is that the owner took the view that it was the tenants’ problem, so did not want the property manager spending any time following up with AMI. Findings What is the Tenants’ liability?
- The property manager’s position is that the description of the insured asset in the policy schedule provided, proves there is no cover for the fence. With respect, I do not agree. That is simply a general description of the insured property. Fences, as structures on the insured property, would ordinarily be covered by homeowner’s insurance. Nothing in the schedule suggests they are excluded from the cover.
- There is no evidence of any claim having been made and rejected by AMI or anything from AMI confirming the landlord’s view that the damage to the fence is not covered by the owner’s policy.
- AA (and the Tribunal for that matter) are perfectly entitled to see the policy wording before accepting the landlord’s assertion that the fence isn’t covered by the policy and that the tenant has to pay the whole of the repair cost.
- The landlord’s refusal to do so means that the Tribunal must proceed on the basis that the landlord has applicable cover. As assessed by AA from the outset, that means the tenants’ liability is limited to the $550.00 excess payable on a claim under that policy. 1
Should the tenant have to pay compensation to the landlord?
- Where a tenant requests it, a landlord of premises that are insured must, provide to the tenant a copy of each relevant insurance policy, within a reasonable time. 2 Breach of that obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $900.00 may be awarded.
- The landlord provided the tenants and their insurer a copy of the policy schedule. The tenant requested a copy of the policy itself, which is different from the schedule and sets out the full terms of the cover. The landlord said that it would, but did not provide the policy document. That breached the landlord’s obligations under s.45(2B) and meant that the landlord committed an unlawful act.
- The consequence was that what should have been a very straightforward exercise, of the tenant’s insurer assessing what the tenants’ liability was and paying that amount, less the excess, to the tenant to pay to the landlord, became convoluted. The landlord continued to claim additional compensation without having provided a basis for claiming it. 1 S.49B(3)(A) RTA 2 S.45(2B) RTA
- The tenants say that because of that confusion they paid the excess to their mechanic to fix their car rather than paying one excess of $500.00 to cover the totality of their costs for the car repair and for their liability to the landlord for the fence damage.
- The evidence however does not show that loss.
- The correspondence from AA makes it clear that like the Tribunal, the AA had assessed the tenants’ liability at $550.00. They paid the tenants $50.00 (the loss minus the $500.00 excess) and explained that the tenants should then pay the $550.00 to the landlords.
- The tenants must pay the landlord compensation equal to the landlords’ insurance excess.
Should exemplary damages be awarded?
- If it would be just to do so, the Tribunal can award exemplary damages where satisfied that a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally and after considering the criteria in s.109(3) which are the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the other parties’ interests and the public interest.
- The failure to provide the insurance policy was intentional. The request was acknowledged, and an assurance given that it would be acted upon.
- The landlord’s intent in not following through on that assurance is not clear – apart from the landlord’s confidence that the loss was not covered and the owner’s unwillingness to assist. I hesitate to assume that the owner would simply rather not have made a claim and recover the repair cost from the tenants’ bond instead.
- The consequence was that instead of the matter being quickly settled at the time, the tenants were confronted with an unsubstantiated claim for the whole of the repair costs, they were told would be taken from their bond, when the tenancy ended. That and the landlord’s slow engagement with these proceedings, means that the tenants have been prevented from recovering bond money they were entitled to since August last year.
- This situation provides an example of the public interest in parties meeting their obligation to provide mandatory information under their control, so liabilities can be accurately and quicky determined and settled.
- No reasonable justification has been provided by the landlord for refusing to meet its obligation to supply the relevant insurance information. I do take into account that it may have been the landlord’s honest, though mistaken, view that it had met its obligation by providing the policy schedule – despite having assured the tenants it would provide more.
- I find that it would be just to make a modest award of exemplary damages for this breach of the landlord’s obligations.
- No order is made about the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Property management
- Idea Home Property Management Limited (respondent)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5329640?
The tribunal order states: Both parties have had success with claims and the Tribunal orders suppression
How much money was awarded in case 5329640?
Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $258.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $114.72 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329640?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329640?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13298282-Tribunal_Order.pdf.