What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335342 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Wolfbrook Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5335342?

Compensation: Roof Leak/Hot Water Cy…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $132.82 awarded to landlord; Painting: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335342?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335342?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13227330-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335342 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Wolfbrook Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5335342?

Compensation: Roof Leak/Hot Water Cy…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $132.82 awarded to landlord; Painting: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335342?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335342?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13227330-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

61A Main Road, Redcliffs, Christchurch 8081 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5335342 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5335342 — net $32.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Painting	$900.00		Repairs: Painting
Window repairs	$132.82		Window repairs
Compensation: Roof Leak/Hot Water Cylinder		$1,000.00	Roof Leak/Hot Water Cylinder
Total award	$1,032.82	$1,000.00
Net award	$32.82
Bond	$2,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$32.82

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Cassowary Limited $32.82 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 (3429769-012) immediately apportioned as follows: Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Cassowary Limited: $32.82 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $2,087.18

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 tenant has applied for compensation for alleged breaches of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The District Court has confirmed that the party claiming non-compliance with insulation standards should provide safe and reliable of the alleged non- compliance. See King & Yushkova v Greene [2021] NZDC 23637. The same rationale applies to alleged breaches of Healthy Homes Standards.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord withdrew a claim for rubbish removal at the hearing.
It did not prove a claim for cleaning costs. The photographs provided show the premises were reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The cleaning claim is dismissed.
The landlord also claimed $1,388.66 for replacement light bulbs. This was amended at the hearing to $40 for a few bulbs. The landlord did not establish any breach of a tenant’s obligations which would result in any award for the lightbulbs. This claim is dismissed.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a French Door windowpane was broken, the garage was graffitied and there was wall damage in the living room and kitchen. That damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant accepted the claim for the windowpane. I do not accept the tenant’s evidence that the graffiti occurred after they left the premises. Photographic evidence shows that walls in the garage were graffitied during the tenancy (albeit different ones than were damaged at the end of the tenancy). The landlord repainted the entire dwelling and sought a contribution for work in every room. Most of the scuffs and marking are fair wear and tear, particularly having regard to the poor condition of the paintwork at the start of the tenancy. The landlord did establish claims for damage to the garage, living room and kitchen. I award $900 for paintwork.
The landlord also claimed $958.55 for a replacement vanity. The claim is dismissed. The vanity was in poor condition at the start of the tenancy. The tenant attempted to repair a crack herself which made the situation worse. However, the landlord was always going to bear the cost of replacing the vanity as a maintenance item. Tenant Claims
The tenants claims that the landlord breached its repair and maintenance obligations and/or Healthy Homes Standards.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenants say that this house was in poor condition. They don’t believe that it could have complied with the Healthy Homes Standards as it was draughty and damp. They said that there were a range of issues throughout the tenancy which they tolerated until the rent was put up by $180.00 per week. They sought compensation of $10,000 calculated as the amount of rent they believe they have over paid.
Their main concerns seemed to be roof leak and hot water cylinder. The first roof leak which occurred in November 2022 and again in early 2024. An email sent at the time of 2024 leak refers to it as the third leak, but no evidence of the second leak was presented to me. The hot water cylinder leaked and was repaired in September 2022. There is also an invoice from a plumber in January 2025 for a replacement Hot Water Cylinder, but there is no other documentary evidence regarding the replacement. The tenants claim they were without hot water for 5 days at that time because of a supply issue. There was no documentary evidence to support that and it was not raised with the landlord at the time.
The obligation to repair is not absolute. A landlord must repair within a reasonable timeframe once it becomes aware of the need for repairs. The landlord provided copies of invoices for repairs and work orders. It responded to requests for maintenance promptly and appropriately. The landlord provided a copy of an independent Healthy Homes report which was obtained during a routine review of compliance throughout its properties.
The tenants did not provide corroborative evidence to establish their claims; there were no independent reports, very limited correspondence with the landlord with any concerns, minimal photographic evidence (and limited to the leak).
The landlord’s representative acknowledged an issue with the butynyl roofing and indicated that the tenants should have been compensated for damage to their property after the first leak. She was also concerned to learn that the tenants had been without hot water for 5 days. I award compensation of $1,000 for those two issues.
The tenants’ other claims are dismissed.
I do not consider that either party has been substantially successful, so do not grant reimbursement of either filing or suppression of either party’s details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5335342 — net $32.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Painting	$900.00		Repairs: Painting
Window repairs	$132.82		Window repairs
Compensation: Roof Leak/Hot Water Cylinder		$1,000.00	Roof Leak/Hot Water Cylinder
Total award	$1,032.82	$1,000.00
Net award	$32.82
Bond	$2,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$32.82

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Cassowary Limited $32.82 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 (3429769-012) immediately apportioned as follows: Wolfbrook Property Management Limited As Agent For Cassowary Limited: $32.82 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $2,087.18

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 tenant has applied for compensation for alleged breaches of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The District Court has confirmed that the party claiming non-compliance with insulation standards should provide safe and reliable of the alleged non- compliance. See King & Yushkova v Greene [2021] NZDC 23637. The same rationale applies to alleged breaches of Healthy Homes Standards.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord withdrew a claim for rubbish removal at the hearing.
It did not prove a claim for cleaning costs. The photographs provided show the premises were reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The cleaning claim is dismissed.
The landlord also claimed $1,388.66 for replacement light bulbs. This was amended at the hearing to $40 for a few bulbs. The landlord did not establish any breach of a tenant’s obligations which would result in any award for the lightbulbs. This claim is dismissed.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a French Door windowpane was broken, the garage was graffitied and there was wall damage in the living room and kitchen. That damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant accepted the claim for the windowpane. I do not accept the tenant’s evidence that the graffiti occurred after they left the premises. Photographic evidence shows that walls in the garage were graffitied during the tenancy (albeit different ones than were damaged at the end of the tenancy). The landlord repainted the entire dwelling and sought a contribution for work in every room. Most of the scuffs and marking are fair wear and tear, particularly having regard to the poor condition of the paintwork at the start of the tenancy. The landlord did establish claims for damage to the garage, living room and kitchen. I award $900 for paintwork.
The landlord also claimed $958.55 for a replacement vanity. The claim is dismissed. The vanity was in poor condition at the start of the tenancy. The tenant attempted to repair a crack herself which made the situation worse. However, the landlord was always going to bear the cost of replacing the vanity as a maintenance item. Tenant Claims
The tenants claims that the landlord breached its repair and maintenance obligations and/or Healthy Homes Standards.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenants say that this house was in poor condition. They don’t believe that it could have complied with the Healthy Homes Standards as it was draughty and damp. They said that there were a range of issues throughout the tenancy which they tolerated until the rent was put up by $180.00 per week. They sought compensation of $10,000 calculated as the amount of rent they believe they have over paid.
Their main concerns seemed to be roof leak and hot water cylinder. The first roof leak which occurred in November 2022 and again in early 2024. An email sent at the time of 2024 leak refers to it as the third leak, but no evidence of the second leak was presented to me. The hot water cylinder leaked and was repaired in September 2022. There is also an invoice from a plumber in January 2025 for a replacement Hot Water Cylinder, but there is no other documentary evidence regarding the replacement. The tenants claim they were without hot water for 5 days at that time because of a supply issue. There was no documentary evidence to support that and it was not raised with the landlord at the time.
The obligation to repair is not absolute. A landlord must repair within a reasonable timeframe once it becomes aware of the need for repairs. The landlord provided copies of invoices for repairs and work orders. It responded to requests for maintenance promptly and appropriately. The landlord provided a copy of an independent Healthy Homes report which was obtained during a routine review of compliance throughout its properties.
The tenants did not provide corroborative evidence to establish their claims; there were no independent reports, very limited correspondence with the landlord with any concerns, minimal photographic evidence (and limited to the leak).
The landlord’s representative acknowledged an issue with the butynyl roofing and indicated that the tenants should have been compensated for damage to their property after the first leak. She was also concerned to learn that the tenants had been without hot water for 5 days. I award compensation of $1,000 for those two issues.
The tenants’ other claims are dismissed.
I do not consider that either party has been substantially successful, so do not grant reimbursement of either filing or suppression of either party’s details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335342 — Property damage at 61A Main Road, Redcliffs, Christchurch 8081

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335342 — Property damage at 61A Main Road, Redcliffs, Christchurch 8081

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions