What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343618 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5343618?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343618?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343618?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12647006-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343618 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5343618?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343618?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343618?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12647006-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343618 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343618 — net $1,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for broken door	$1,000.00	Insurance excess for broken door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,028.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,028.00

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference on 30 October 2025.

The landlord has applied for compensation for damaged door lock, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

For damage claims, 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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. See section 49B(3)(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. See section 49B(1) 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.

The parties agreed that on 11 July 2025, the tenant had broken into his own house and caused damage to the door lock. The tenant said that the electronic keypad had issues from the beginning of the tenancy and had locked the tenants out that night.

The tenancy began on 16 June 2025. On that day, the tenant messaged the landlord saying that the door needed to be replaced. The tenant said that the code could not even be keyed into the electronic keypad and that the previous tenants had left the door unlocked for the tenant.

The following day on 17 June 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord saying that the door was fixed and that it just needed new batteries.

Between 17 June 2025 and 11 July 2025, the tenant did not email the landlord notifying of any issues with the electronic keypad. However, the tenant claimed that the tenant had rang the property manager saying that the door was faulty and had requested a physical key.

At the hearing, the tenant said that the door had locked and unlocked once or twice before it stopped working at all. The tenant said that the lock had to remain unlocked.

On 11 July 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord at 9:58 pm that they had been locked out and the keypad had stopped working. At 10:12 pm, the landlord replied to the tenant “have you managed to get back in?” At 10:47 pm, the tenant replied to the landlord “yes, I have got into the address.”

The tenant explained that a locksmith was called but that the tenant could not afford the $300.00 callout fee immediately. The tenant said that the tenant called the property manager multiple times before emailing the landlord.

I find that the damage caused by the tenant was at least careless and possibly even intentional.

The tenant did not give the landlord an opportunity to rectify the issue on 11 July 2025. The tenant did not take all reasonable steps to allow for the landlord to get the keypad sorted. If there were persistent issues with the keypad, the tenant should have notified the landlord about it in writing as the tenant had done before for the matter to be sorted beforehand.

I order the tenant to pay the landlord $1,000.00 being the insurance excess for the damaged door lock.

Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343618 — net $1,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for broken door	$1,000.00	Insurance excess for broken door
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,028.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,028.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,028.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference on 30 October 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damaged door lock, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
For damage claims, 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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. See section 49B(3)(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. See section 49B(1) 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.
The parties agreed that on 11 July 2025, the tenant had broken into his own house and caused damage to the door lock. The tenant said that the electronic keypad had issues from the beginning of the tenancy and had locked the tenants out that night.
The tenancy began on 16 June 2025. On that day, the tenant messaged the landlord saying that the door needed to be replaced. The tenant said that the code could not even be keyed into the electronic keypad and that the previous tenants had left the door unlocked for the tenant.
The following day on 17 June 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord saying that the door was fixed and that it just needed new batteries.
Between 17 June 2025 and 11 July 2025, the tenant did not email the landlord notifying of any issues with the electronic keypad. However, the tenant claimed that the tenant had rang the property manager saying that the door was faulty and had requested a physical key.
At the hearing, the tenant said that the door had locked and unlocked once or twice before it stopped working at all. The tenant said that the lock had to remain unlocked.
On 11 July 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord at 9:58 pm that they had been locked out and the keypad had stopped working. At 10:12 pm, the landlord replied to the tenant “have you managed to get back in?” At 10:47 pm, the tenant replied to the landlord “yes, I have got into the address.”
The tenant explained that a locksmith was called but that the tenant could not afford the $300.00 callout fee immediately. The tenant said that the tenant called the property manager multiple times before emailing the landlord.
I find that the damage caused by the tenant was at least careless and possibly even intentional.
The tenant did not give the landlord an opportunity to rectify the issue on 11 July 2025. The tenant did not take all reasonable steps to allow for the landlord to get the keypad sorted. If there were persistent issues with the keypad, the tenant should have notified the landlord about it in writing as the tenant had done before for the matter to be sorted beforehand.
I order the tenant to pay the landlord $1,000.00 being the insurance excess for the damaged door lock.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343618 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343618 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions