What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341774 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent of the parties, the tenancy terminates on 20 October 2025, and

How much money was awarded in case 5341774?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341774?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341774?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12516188-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341774 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent of the parties, the tenancy terminates on 20 October 2025, and

How much money was awarded in case 5341774?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341774?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341774?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12516188-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Apartment 504, 7 Scotia Place, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341774 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341774. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
of the insurance excess of	$250.00		of the insurance excess of

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341774. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
of the insurance excess of	$250.00		of the insurance excess of

Order

By consent of the parties, the tenancy terminates on 20 October 2025, and possession will need to be returned to the landlord then.
The Tribunal declares that the tenants are liable for the damage to the cooktop as it is likely careless damage. The tenant’s liability is to the level of the insurance excess of $250.00.
The landlord must pay compensation of $200.00 for having no stove available in the Tenancy.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenants seeking a reduction or termination of the fixed-term tenancy, and orders in relation to a broken cooktop.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in Auckland today.

BACKGROUND

The parties are in a fixed-term tenancy due to end on 19 January 2026.
The cooktop in the premises is a ceramic / glass type induction hob.
On 15 July 2025, the tenants advised the landlord by email that the glass on the cooktop was broken. The tenants reported that “there was no impact or misuse” that caused the damage.
The landlord responded the following day that they would arrange a handyman to assess the damage.
On 21 July 2025, the landlord emailed the tenants advising that the handyman had taken photographs of the damage, and advised that “this would have been done by force and there is no other way that it could have broken”.
The tenants responded disputing that they caused the damage: I would like to formally dispute your assertion that the damage must have been caused by force and that I am therefore liable for the full cost of replacement. I wish to clarify that the crack occurred during normal household use and was not the result of any careless or intentional action on my part. There was no misuse, and no incident involving impact or force that would explain the damage.
The tenant gave a 14-day notice to remedy. 1
The parties then entered into a dispute over who would be liable for the damage. The tenants maintained they were not liable, the landlord viewed it differently, that the damage was the tenants’ responsibility.
The landlord ultimately instructed Axial Appliance Servicing to have the unit replaced on 1 September, and the hob replacement occurred on 11 September 2025. The invoice records the cost of the replacement as $607.43.

TENANTS CASE

The tenants state that while they were cooking, they hit the side of the cooktop, which caused it to crack. 1 If the landlord did not comply with the 14 day notice, then that would provide a ground for the tenant to apply for a termination of the tenancy under section 56.
The tenants say that without anyone coming to the premises, the landlord determined that the tenants should pay for it.
The tenants state they issued a 14-day notice to repair the cooktop, but had no further response from the landlord was received. The tenants state that they have needed to purchase other equipment in order to cook and sterilise bottles.
The tenants say that the landlord has been trying to pass blame on the building manager.
The tenants say that they have lost faith in the landlord, and want to end the tenancy.
In response to what the landlord stated over the cause of the damage, the tenants dispute that there is a hole in the cooktop.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord’s position is that the tenants caused the damage to the cooktop, by dropping something on the surface, which would be the tenants’ liability.
The landlord submits that the photograph is consistent with a hole on the cooktop, which looks as if something had dropped on the top.

ANALYSIS

There are two claims to consider, a reduction of the term of the tenancy, and secondly, liability for the cooktop damage. Claim 1 – Reduction of fixed-term tenancy
At the hearing, the parties reached an agreement on this matter. It was agreed that the tenancy will end on 20 October 2025, so that is ordered by consent of the parties. Claim 2 – Liability for the damage to the cooktop
There is no doubt that the cooktop is damaged; the parties agree that is the case. But liability is disputed, which turns on the likely cause of the damage. Cause of the damage
It is necessary to consider how the cooktop is likely to have been damaged.
There is an inconsistency between how the damage was described in emails to the landlord and at the hearing today. In emails, the tenants said “there was no impact” and “no incident involving impact or force”. But that differs to what I was told at the hearing, which was that a pot may have hit the edge or been dropped.
In my assessment, the evidence does point to impact damage for these reasons: a. Impact damage would be more consistent with what the tenants advised me at the hearing. b. That is also the assessment of the technician from Axial Appliances, who reports in the invoice that “ took a look at unit, looks like something has dropped on it to cause the crack.” It can be accepted that the technician would be suitably qualified and independent to make such an assessment. c. The photograph shows cracking with a central point of impact, with the cracks proliferating outward-which would be consistent with something striking the cooktop, and the cracking radiating from that.
I note for completeness, that at the hearing the tenant submitted that there is a known fault with the Midea induction Hob Cooktop, and a product warning from the manufacturer. I have read that information, which relates to the induction hob “ experiencing spontaneous combustion or fire incidents.” That is not the situation here; the cooktop did not spontaneously combust or catch on fire, but the glass surface cracked. To that extent, I do not consider there is any relevance to that manufacturer’s warning.

Are the tenants liable for the damage?

Where damage occurs as a result of fair wear and tear, then the landlord is responsible for that damage. However, in this case, as indicated above, I consider the damage arose from something falling on the cooktop, which would not be fair wear and tear. As I will discuss shortly, I consider it would have been careless damage.
If damage occurs during the tenancy, which is the case here, then if it is not fair wear and tear, the onus in law sits with the tenant to prove that the damage was not careless or intentional damage.
There is no suggestion that the damage was intentional; I am sure that is not the situation.
However, the real question is whether the damage would be careless, and I find it would. It is generally understood that glass or ceramic cooktops must be treated with reasonable care because of the materials they are made of. They are not like cast-iron trivets on a gas hob, or even electric elements made of metal, which would be more robust than a glass surface. It must be generally realised that dropping a heavy item on a glass cooktop would risk the unit breaking.
The evidence in this case does point to the tenants dropping something on the cooktop, which is most likely to be a careless action.
The Tenancy agreement records that the excess on the insurance policy is $250.00, so that is the maximum level of liability the tenants will have to toward the cooktop. Compensation
While I find that the tenant is liable for the damage to the cooktop, I consider it reasonable that the landlord provide some compensation for the delays in replacing the appliance. At the end of the day, there is a legal obligation on the landlord to provide cooking facilities in a residential dwelling, and the fact that the tenant damaged the facility initially does not change that. In this case it took some two months to replace the stove top, which was too long. I accept that there would have been additional costs and inconvenience arise for the tenants, and it is fair that they receive some compensation for that over the period of the unreasonable delay. I have not been provided with invoices or any other quantification of costs, but when I step back and consider what would be fair in the circumstances, I consider that $200.00 would be reasonable.
As will be seen in this decision, I have not ordered that the tenant or the landlord pay money to one another immediately, for the simple reason that the Tenancy is coming to an end shortly. There is a bond held in the Bond Centre, and no doubt the parties will be able to agree to a release of the bond, to cover the damage.
What that means, is that once the $200 compensation is deducted from the liability for the cooktop of $250, that means the tenants owe the landlord $50. That $50 can be deducted from the bond at the end of the tenancy.
I make no further orders.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341774 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Apartment 504, 7 Scotia Place, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341774 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Apartment 504, 7 Scotia Place, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

ANALYSIS

Are the tenants liable for the damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

ANALYSIS

Are the tenants liable for the damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions