What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5333680 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 5333680?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5333680?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5333680?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12630422-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5333680 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 5333680?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5333680?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5333680?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12630422-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5333680 — Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties agreed that the tenancy ended on 20 July 2025.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
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 [2019] NZHC 1541. Repairs to walls
The landlord said the tenant damaged the walls during the tenancy by putting up picture hooks and claimed $575.00 to repair the holes in the walls.
The landlord provided photographs of the walls at the end of the tenancy, which showed picture hooks on several walls at the property and some other small pinholes in the walls also. The landlord provided an invoice for $575.00 to remove the picture hooks, fill, sand and paint the picture hook and other pinholes. The landlord said the property had been freshly painted just before the tenant moved in.
The tenant believed the picture hooks were fair wear and tear. She said she left them for the next tenant to use and thought she should not be penalised for putting up her pictures in the place she lived. She said she also had to put up a mirror in the toilet, as there was no mirror there. The tenant said she filled and sanded the holes where she removed the TV bracket and was waiting to get the exact name of the paint from the landlord, when she started receiving communication from the landlord which indicated things were escalating so she decided to leave things there until this was dealt with more fully. The tenant said she has been renting properties for many years and has never been penalised for putting up picture hooks, nor have other tenants removed their picture hooks before she has moved into other properties. She believed the next tenant would likely have some use for the picture hooks and that it was unrealistic of the landlord to expect that tenants would not put up pictures when they lived at the property.
The landlord said that if the property had not been freshly painted just before the tenancy, they may have had a different view. They indicated that the number of picture hooks was excessive here, estimating there were about 50 pinholes from picture hooks. The tenant did not believe the amount of her picture hooks was excessive.
The tenant pointed out the landlord’s builder’s invoice mentioned 14 walls dealt with during repairs. The landlord responded that this did not include individual pinholes on each wall.
It is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, that the tenants will live in the dwelling, and in the process cause some wear and tear. As far as walls are concerned, it would be expected there would be some minor damage such as scrapes, marks or even minor holes when hanging pictures and the like. That is an incident of people living in the premises, and that damage (wear and tear) is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives.
In reviewing the photographs provided by the landlord, and with the landlord confirming at the hearing that it was the picture hooks and pinholes for which they were claiming the repair cost, I find the landlord has not proved that the pinholes from the picture hooks and the TV bracket, were likely more than fair wear and tear. Therefore, the compensation claim is dismissed. Other claims
As the compensation claim is dismissed, it follows that the claims for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee must also be dismissed. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression. The tenant requested name suppression, as she said she has an abusive ex-partner, whom she does not want to find her. In the circumstances, given this evidence and that the claims are dismissed, I find the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing her name. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties agreed that the tenancy ended on 20 July 2025.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
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 [2019] NZHC 1541. Repairs to walls
The landlord said the tenant damaged the walls during the tenancy by putting up picture hooks and claimed $575.00 to repair the holes in the walls.
The landlord provided photographs of the walls at the end of the tenancy, which showed picture hooks on several walls at the property and some other small pinholes in the walls also. The landlord provided an invoice for $575.00 to remove the picture hooks, fill, sand and paint the picture hook and other pinholes. The landlord said the property had been freshly painted just before the tenant moved in.
The tenant believed the picture hooks were fair wear and tear. She said she left them for the next tenant to use and thought she should not be penalised for putting up her pictures in the place she lived. She said she also had to put up a mirror in the toilet, as there was no mirror there. The tenant said she filled and sanded the holes where she removed the TV bracket and was waiting to get the exact name of the paint from the landlord, when she started receiving communication from the landlord which indicated things were escalating so she decided to leave things there until this was dealt with more fully. The tenant said she has been renting properties for many years and has never been penalised for putting up picture hooks, nor have other tenants removed their picture hooks before she has moved into other properties. She believed the next tenant would likely have some use for the picture hooks and that it was unrealistic of the landlord to expect that tenants would not put up pictures when they lived at the property.
The landlord said that if the property had not been freshly painted just before the tenancy, they may have had a different view. They indicated that the number of picture hooks was excessive here, estimating there were about 50 pinholes from picture hooks. The tenant did not believe the amount of her picture hooks was excessive.
The tenant pointed out the landlord’s builder’s invoice mentioned 14 walls dealt with during repairs. The landlord responded that this did not include individual pinholes on each wall.
It is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, that the tenants will live in the dwelling, and in the process cause some wear and tear. As far as walls are concerned, it would be expected there would be some minor damage such as scrapes, marks or even minor holes when hanging pictures and the like. That is an incident of people living in the premises, and that damage (wear and tear) is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives.
In reviewing the photographs provided by the landlord, and with the landlord confirming at the hearing that it was the picture hooks and pinholes for which they were claiming the repair cost, I find the landlord has not proved that the pinholes from the picture hooks and the TV bracket, were likely more than fair wear and tear. Therefore, the compensation claim is dismissed. Other claims
As the compensation claim is dismissed, it follows that the claims for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee must also be dismissed. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression. The tenant requested name suppression, as she said she has an abusive ex-partner, whom she does not want to find her. In the circumstances, given this evidence and that the claims are dismissed, I find the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing her name. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5333680 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5333680 — Property damage

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

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions