Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5338133 — Property damage at 51 Wembley Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1041
Decided 29 Dec 2025 · Published 29 Dec 2025 · Application 5338133
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
V Pasupati
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $115.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $115.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs to weatherboard | $115.00 | Repairs to weatherboard | |
| Net award | $115.00 | ||
| Bond | $4,480.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $115.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5338133 — net $115.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Repairs to weatherboard
- Amount
- $115.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs to weatherboard
Net award
Landlord $115.00
Bond
Landlord $4,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $115.00
Dismissed claims
- Other Claims — All other claims dismissed
- Property Damage — Sliding door lock
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Duong Chieu Vo is to pay Weiling Wu $115.00 from the bond, as shown in the table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,480.00 (5859379-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Weiling Wu: $115.00 Duong Chieu Vo: $4,365.00
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord, Ms Wu, attended with Mr Zihao Wang, who is also an owner of the premises. The Tribunal was assisted by Mr Sun, interpreter.
- This tenancy began on 24 February 2024 and ended on 24 August 2025.
- The tenant, Ms Vo, has filed an application claiming the return of her bond. The bond was originally in the name of three tenants, two of whom have since left. The tenant states she has paid the departing tenants their share of the bond. The two departing tenants have confirmed in writing (in emails provided after the hearing) that they have no claim on the bond, and agree that it can be refunded in full to the tenant.
- The landlord has filed a counterclaim and seeks compensation for damage and payment from the bond, following the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damage to the following: • Blinds • Sliding door lock • Window handle • Windowsill • Weatherboard above the garage Compensation for damage Legal framework
- To establish a claim for compensation for damage, 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 of the 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.
- When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered. Blinds
- The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the blinds in two rooms, specifically that the pull cords were missing, and seeks $90.00 for the cost of repairs. The landlord states that the blinds are approximately three years old. The tenant, in her oral evidence, explained that she experienced issues with the blinds during the tenancy and denies responsibility for any damage.
- While I note the landlord’s invoice for repairs, I am not satisfied that the need for repairs arose from damage caused during this tenancy, or that the damage is more than fair wear and tear from ordinary use. There is no evidence before me that the tenant intentionally or carelessly damaged the blinds. Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for the cost of repairs is dismissed. Sliding door lock
- The landlord claims $244.05 for installing a new door lock for a sliding door and has provided an invoice, and photographs taken at the end of the tenancy in support of this claim.
- Having considered the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that the tenant has established, through oral and photographic evidence, that this lock was missing at the start of the tenancy. Accordingly, as it is unlikely that this damage occurred during the tenant’s occupation, she is not liable for the cost of repair.
- The landlord has not provided clear photographic evidence from the start of the tenancy to support her claim that the lock was present at that time. In contrast, the tenant has produced a photograph taken on 7 March 2024, near the start of the tenancy, which clearly shows the lock was missing. The tenant has also explained that she was able to secure the door using another lock located at the top of the door, and believed this was the only lock for that door. I find the tenant’s explanation to be plausible.
- Accordingly, the tenant is not liable for the cost of replacing the sliding door lock, and this claim is dismissed. Window handle
- The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for the cost of repairing the master bedroom window handle, which was damaged during the tenancy, and seeks compensation of $90.00, supported by an invoice. The landlord states that a new handle was installed, which the tenant acknowledges. The tenant, however, contends that the handle was not properly attached, became difficult to operate, and eventually came away while being used. The tenant states that this occurred accidentally.
- In her email to the landlord dated 30 August 2025, the tenant explained that when the window handle first broke, she notified the landlord, who arranged for its repair. The handle broke again soon afterwards. The tenant considers that the failure of the handle is likely due to an unsatisfactory repair, rather than any intentional or careless act on her part.
- I am satisfied that the landlord has established the handle was installed during the tenancy. However, having considered the tenant’s evidence, including her notification to the landlord and her explanation regarding the repair, I am not persuaded that the damage was caused intentionally or carelessly by the tenant. On balance, I find it more likely that the failure of the handle was due to a faulty or inadequate repair, rather than any act or omission by the tenant.
- Accordingly, the tenant is not liable for the cost of repairing the window handle, and this claim is dismissed. Windowsill
- The landlord claimed the windowsill damage, likely due to water from a pot plant being placed on it, was caused by the tenant. However, the tenant has produced a photograph taken at the start of the tenancy which shows this damage was already there when she moved in. After considering the tenant’s evidence, the landlord has withdrawn this claim. Weatherboard
- The landlord claims that the tenant installed a solar light on the exterior of the premises, and that when it was removed, holes were left in the weatherboard, which required patching and painting. The tenant accepts that the lights were hers and explains that she installed them, due to security concerns. She states that when her friend removed the light, two holes were left in the weatherboard. The tenant accepts liability for 50% of the cost claimed, and submits that the landlord should have notified her earlier so she could have undertaken the repair work herself at half the cost.
- The landlord confirms that the tenant was permitted to install the solar light, but states that it was necessary to engage a professional to repair the resulting damage.
- Taking into account the evidence and submissions of both parties, I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and the tenant has caused this damage (which she accepts). In the circumstances, I consider it reasonable for the tenant to compensate the landlord for the cost of the repairs. Therefore, the amount of $115.00, as claimed by the landlord, is awarded. Name suppression and filing fee
- Neither party seeks name suppression.
- As each party has had some success with their application, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s11, s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5338133?
The tribunal order states: Duong Chieu Vo is to pay Weiling Wu $115.00 from the bond, as shown in the
How much money was awarded in case 5338133?
Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338133?
The primary dispute was Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338133?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12823089-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.