What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343501 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5343501?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $570.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $394.29 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $529.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343501?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343501?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12905309-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343501 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5343501?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $570.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $394.29 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $529.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343501?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343501?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12905309-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Winiata Terrace, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343501 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343501 — net $1,521.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 30/6/25	$394.29	Rent arrears to 30/6/25
Water rates: to 30/6/25	$529.11	Water rates: to 30/6/25
Hob replacement	$570.00	Hob replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,521.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,521.40

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.

The tenants were telephoned on the phone numbers provided but the phone calls went unanswered and to voice mail. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing to the email address for service in the tenancy agreement. The hearing proceeded in their absence. Additional email addresses have been provided to the landlord and included on the bond refund form. This order will be served to the tenants to the additional email addresses.

The landlord has applied for: a. rent arrears, b. water rates, c. compensation, d. refund of the bond, and e. reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.

The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.” Rent arrears 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02

The tenant must pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 2 The tenancy ended on 30 June 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $394.29 and this amount is ordered. Water rates

The tenant is responsible for water consumption charges. 3

The landlord provided water rates invoices and an invoice summary which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $529.11 and this amount is ordered. Damage

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 4 Where a landlord is claiming 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. 5

Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 6

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). 7

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). 8 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 9 2 See section 40 (1)(a) of the RTA. 3 See section 39 RTA. 4 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 5 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 6 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 7 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 9 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. 10

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. 11

In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. 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, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Oven/Hob claim

The landlord claims compensation of $1,495 for the full replacement of the oven and stove top. An invoice was provided in support of the claim.

The evidence provided by the landlord is that in March 2025 the tenant said three of the four plates of the hob were not working and the oven door was not closing.

The repairer wrote to the landlord following inspecting the oven and hob in March 2025 and said that there were cockroaches inside the oven and cooktop and the cooktop was damaged by the cockroaches. The repairer suggests that the cooktop and oven are replaced all together.

The hob was replaced in 2023 at a cost of $650.

The landlord was unaware of the age of the oven but said it was likely over 5 years old. The IR 256 (general depreciation rates) says the estimated useful lifespan of an oven is 8 years. On reviewing the evidence in respect of the oven door, I am not satisfied that the damage to the oven door was more than fair wear and tear.

Because it appears likely the hob was damaged by the cockroaches, I consider the damage to the hob to be more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.

In taking into account the above matters I will order the tenant pay compensation of $570 which reflects part of the cost to repair the hob only, taking into account betterment and depreciation. 10 See section 49B(1) RTA. 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Bond

I note that the Bond has been refunded by the Bond Centre following receipt of a bond refund form which was submitted by the landlord. There was a discrepancy in the bond refund form and the bond was refunded in full to the tenant. As I indicated to the landlord at the hearing, there’s no jurisdiction for the tribunal to otherwise order payment from the Bond Centre of the bond when it is no longer held by the Bond Centre. Filing Fee

As the landlord has succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. 12 Suppression

The landlord did not seek name suppression

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343501 — net $1,521.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 30/6/25	$394.29	Rent arrears to 30/6/25
Water rates: to 30/6/25	$529.11	Water rates: to 30/6/25
Hob replacement	$570.00	Hob replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,521.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,521.40

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The tenant is responsible for water consumption charges. 3

The landlord provided water rates invoices and an invoice summary which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $529.11 and this amount is ordered. Damage

Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 5

Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 6

The landlord claims compensation of $1,495 for the full replacement of the oven and stove top. An invoice was provided in support of the claim.

The evidence provided by the landlord is that in March 2025 the tenant said three of the four plates of the hob were not working and the oven door was not closing.

The hob was replaced in 2023 at a cost of $650.

Because it appears likely the hob was damaged by the cockroaches, I consider the damage to the hob to be more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.

As the landlord has succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. 12 Suppression

The landlord did not seek name suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343501 — Property damage at 17 Winiata Terrace, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343501 — Property damage at 17 Winiata Terrace, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.