What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342281 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Trio Group (NZ) Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5342281?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342281?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12814101-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342281 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Trio Group (NZ) Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5342281?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342281?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12814101-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 1, 23 Waipapa Road, Hataitai, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5342281 — Leaks

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Trio Group (NZ) Limited $293.25 from the bond, for repairs to the deck surface.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,170.00 (3564425-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Trio Group (Nz) Limited: $293.25 [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $876.75
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Davies represented the landlord. Mr Beard and Mr Maddock appeared for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for costs to repair the fibreglass coating (traffic guard) on the deck at the premises ($293.25), a section of the kitchen floor ($1,380.00), and reimbursement of costs paid to have the tenants’ washing machine repaired in May 2019 ($108.00).
The claim for reimbursement of the washing machine repair costs is dismissed because this claim was filed more than six years after the invoice was received and paid by the landlord. Section 11(1) of the Limitation Act 2010 provides that “[i]t is a defence to a money claim if the defendant proves that the date the claim is filed is at least 6 years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based.”

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Carelessness is not defined in the Act but it has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The standard of care required is similar to the standard of care required by the general law of tort in negligence cases. Thus, the question can be expressed as whether the tenant, or some other person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, was ‘exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances’
I am satisfied that the landlord has established that the damage to the deck and the kitchen floor occurred during the tenancy and is beyond fair wear and tear. I find that it is more likely than not that the damage to the deck occurred by the tenants (or someone at the premises with their permission) carelessly by dropping and/or dragging an item on or across the deck after being told to take particular care with the fibreglass coating.
I therefore find them liable for the cost to repair this damage. The amount ordered has been established by the production of a quote.
I dismiss the claim for damage to the kitchen floor. Ms Davies claims that the damage likely occurred due to the tenants washing machine leaking over time causing water to pool and seep under the lino and damaging the flooring underneath.
The damage was discovered by Ms Davies when she completed the final inspection on 12 August 2025 (the day after the tenancy ended). She said that at that inspection there was water pooling on top of the lino where the washing machine had been. However, I accept Mr Maddock and Mr Beard’s evidence that the washing machine was removed from the premises when they vacated three weeks before the tenancy ended and there was no evidence of water on the lino at that time or at any time before that. Thus, there is some doubt whether the tenants’ washing machine did leak causing the damage as claimed by the landlord. The water discovered by Ms Davies could have come from a leak elsewhere particularly given the age of the premises (somewhere between 80 years (according to Ms Davies) and 110 years (according to the tenants) and that the floor was uneven.
Moreover, even if it was established that the tenants’ washing machine caused the damage, I accept their evidence that they were completely unaware of any leaking from the washing machine or that the machine had any issue that may have alerted them to take action to remedy it. I therefore find that they have established that the damage (if it was caused by their washing machine) was not due to the tenants deliberately or carelessly (as that term is defined above0. Application fee
The landlord has been mostly unsuccessful in its claims. I therefore do not consider this an appropriate case to award it payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
The landlord applied, in its application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
However, the landlord has been mostly unsuccessful in its claims. The application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Trio Group (NZ) Limited $293.25 from the bond, for repairs to the deck surface.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,170.00 (3564425-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Trio Group (Nz) Limited: $293.25 [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $876.75
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Davies represented the landlord. Mr Beard and Mr Maddock appeared for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for costs to repair the fibreglass coating (traffic guard) on the deck at the premises ($293.25), a section of the kitchen floor ($1,380.00), and reimbursement of costs paid to have the tenants’ washing machine repaired in May 2019 ($108.00).
The claim for reimbursement of the washing machine repair costs is dismissed because this claim was filed more than six years after the invoice was received and paid by the landlord. Section 11(1) of the Limitation Act 2010 provides that “[i]t is a defence to a money claim if the defendant proves that the date the claim is filed is at least 6 years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based.”

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Carelessness is not defined in the Act but it has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The standard of care required is similar to the standard of care required by the general law of tort in negligence cases. Thus, the question can be expressed as whether the tenant, or some other person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, was ‘exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances’
I am satisfied that the landlord has established that the damage to the deck and the kitchen floor occurred during the tenancy and is beyond fair wear and tear. I find that it is more likely than not that the damage to the deck occurred by the tenants (or someone at the premises with their permission) carelessly by dropping and/or dragging an item on or across the deck after being told to take particular care with the fibreglass coating.
I therefore find them liable for the cost to repair this damage. The amount ordered has been established by the production of a quote.
I dismiss the claim for damage to the kitchen floor. Ms Davies claims that the damage likely occurred due to the tenants washing machine leaking over time causing water to pool and seep under the lino and damaging the flooring underneath.
The damage was discovered by Ms Davies when she completed the final inspection on 12 August 2025 (the day after the tenancy ended). She said that at that inspection there was water pooling on top of the lino where the washing machine had been. However, I accept Mr Maddock and Mr Beard’s evidence that the washing machine was removed from the premises when they vacated three weeks before the tenancy ended and there was no evidence of water on the lino at that time or at any time before that. Thus, there is some doubt whether the tenants’ washing machine did leak causing the damage as claimed by the landlord. The water discovered by Ms Davies could have come from a leak elsewhere particularly given the age of the premises (somewhere between 80 years (according to Ms Davies) and 110 years (according to the tenants) and that the floor was uneven.
Moreover, even if it was established that the tenants’ washing machine caused the damage, I accept their evidence that they were completely unaware of any leaking from the washing machine or that the machine had any issue that may have alerted them to take action to remedy it. I therefore find that they have established that the damage (if it was caused by their washing machine) was not due to the tenants deliberately or carelessly (as that term is defined above0. Application fee
The landlord has been mostly unsuccessful in its claims. I therefore do not consider this an appropriate case to award it payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
The landlord applied, in its application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
However, the landlord has been mostly unsuccessful in its claims. The application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342281 — Leaks at Flat 1, 23 Waipapa Road, Hataitai, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342281 — Leaks at Flat 1, 23 Waipapa Road, Hataitai, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.