Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5345055 — Property damage

Decided 18 Dec 2025 · Published 18 Dec 2025 · Application 5345055

Property damage
Cleanliness

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Zealand

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

R Armstrong

Dispute themes

Award balance

Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.

Gross award: $1,028.00
Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord: $1,028.00

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5345055 — net $1,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Benchtop replacement (insurance excess	$1,000.00	Benchtop replacement (insurance excess
Carpet Cleaning	$28.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$1,028.00
Bond	$1,560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,028.00

Order

Applications for suppression have been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant] to pay [he landlord] $1,028.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord]: $1,028.00 [The tenant]: $532.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for the bond. The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to a kitchen benchtop, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Both parties seek name suppression. Background
This tenancy was from September 2022 to September 2025.
There were no serious problems until shortly before the end of the tenancy when the landlord noticed burn marks on the Formica kitchen benchtop and that the benchtop behind the cooktop had dropped significantly revealing the gib below the splashback.
The tenant largely remediated the burn marks, and they are not relevant for the purposes of this decision. The dispute is over liability for the benchtop dropping.
The landlord has owned the premises, as well as the three other units in the building, since 2004. He had a new kitchen installed in the premises in 2015. I accept the landlord’s evidence that it was installed professionally.
The landlord also installed a new cook top in the premises shortly after the tenancy began.
The tenant says that he was not aware of the damage and suggests that it was present from the beginning of the tenancy. Law
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises.
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.
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).
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. Evidence, Discussion and Decision
The landlord produced photographs and video evidence showing the benchtop at the start of the tenancy and after the landlord noticed the damage.
In the video, taken just before the tenancy started, one can see what looks like a black line at the back of the cooktop. The landlord said that it was the silicone along the join between the benchtop and the wall at the back and that it had become discoloured from use of the cooktop.
The tenant suggested that it shows the gap that the landlord now complains of.
I find that the video shows discoloured silicone not a gap. The gap exposes unlined gib which is white, and the video shows a black line or at least a dark colour. The landlord says that whatever has caused the benchtop to drop, for example overflows from cooking, has stripped away the gib lining as well.
I note as well that the ingoing condition report, signed by the parties, does not record any defect in the kitchen. The gap that is in contention is obvious. The landlord has measured it at 12mm. I think it would have been seen and noted if it was there at the start of the tenancy.
It follows that the landlord has proved that the gap occurred during the tenancy. It is therefore up to the tenant to disprove responsibility for it.
Obviously, the tenant cannot say in response that it was there at the start of the tenancy because I have found otherwise.
The tenant suggested that it could be due to the age of the benchtop. 10 years is not old for a benchtop, and I would not expect a well-constructed kitchen to deteriorate significantly after that time. There is no evidence of any defect in the construction of the benchtop or the unit supporting it. The landlord produced photographs showing other older benchtops in other units showing no sign of damage.
The landlord suggested that overflows from cooking could have weakened the MDF material of which the unit is made, and which supported the benchtop and caused it to sag under its own weight. That is a plausible explanation. I note that the dropping is limited in length to the width of the cooktop and only slightly beyond on either side.
I find that the tenant has not proved that he is not responsible for the damage to the benchtop and therefore he is liable to compensate the landlord for the cost of replacing the benchtop.
The landlord has rightly limited his claim to his insurance excess of $1,000 and so I have awarded that. The landlord has succeeded and so I have awarded the filing fee. Suppression
Both parties have applied for name suppression. The landlord is entitled to it because he has succeeded. I find that the tenant should have it as well. There is very little public interest in the tenant being named. This damage was an unfortunate accident, and I accept that the tenant was unaware of it. It would be unfair to name him in the published order.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Property damage Cleanliness NO ADDRESS

Key findings

Dispute theme: property damage
Dispute theme: cleaning

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5345055 about?

The tribunal order states: Applications for suppression have been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5345055?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5345055?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5345055?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12891432-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

For landlords & property managers

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.

Order a Tenantcheck →

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5345055 — net $1,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Benchtop replacement (insurance excess

$1,000.00

Benchtop replacement (insurance excess

Carpet Cleaning

$28.00

Carpet Cleaning

Net award

$1,028.00

Bond

$1,560.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$1,028.00

Order

Applications for suppression have been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant] to pay [he landlord] $1,028.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord]: $1,028.00 [The tenant]: $532.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for the bond. The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to a kitchen benchtop, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Both parties seek name suppression. Background

This tenancy was from September 2022 to September 2025.

There were no serious problems until shortly before the end of the tenancy when the landlord noticed burn marks on the Formica kitchen benchtop and that the benchtop behind the cooktop had dropped significantly revealing the gib below the splashback.

The tenant largely remediated the burn marks, and they are not relevant for the purposes of this decision. The dispute is over liability for the benchtop dropping.

The landlord has owned the premises, as well as the three other units in the building, since 2004. He had a new kitchen installed in the premises in 2015. I accept the landlord’s evidence that it was installed professionally.

The landlord also installed a new cook top in the premises shortly after the tenancy began.

The tenant says that he was not aware of the damage and suggests that it was present from the beginning of the tenancy. Law

The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises.

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.

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).

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. Evidence, Discussion and Decision

The landlord produced photographs and video evidence showing the benchtop at the start of the tenancy and after the landlord noticed the damage.

In the video, taken just before the tenancy started, one can see what looks like a black line at the back of the cooktop. The landlord said that it was the silicone along the join between the benchtop and the wall at the back and that it had become discoloured from use of the cooktop.

The tenant suggested that it shows the gap that the landlord now complains of.

I find that the video shows discoloured silicone not a gap. The gap exposes unlined gib which is white, and the video shows a black line or at least a dark colour. The landlord says that whatever has caused the benchtop to drop, for example overflows from cooking, has stripped away the gib lining as well.

I note as well that the ingoing condition report, signed by the parties, does not record any defect in the kitchen. The gap that is in contention is obvious. The landlord has measured it at 12mm. I think it would have been seen and noted if it was there at the start of the tenancy.

It follows that the landlord has proved that the gap occurred during the tenancy. It is therefore up to the tenant to disprove responsibility for it.

Obviously, the tenant cannot say in response that it was there at the start of the tenancy because I have found otherwise.

The tenant suggested that it could be due to the age of the benchtop. 10 years is not old for a benchtop, and I would not expect a well-constructed kitchen to deteriorate significantly after that time. There is no evidence of any defect in the construction of the benchtop or the unit supporting it. The landlord produced photographs showing other older benchtops in other units showing no sign of damage.

The landlord suggested that overflows from cooking could have weakened the MDF material of which the unit is made, and which supported the benchtop and caused it to sag under its own weight. That is a plausible explanation. I note that the dropping is limited in length to the width of the cooktop and only slightly beyond on either side.

I find that the tenant has not proved that he is not responsible for the damage to the benchtop and therefore he is liable to compensate the landlord for the cost of replacing the benchtop.

The landlord has rightly limited his claim to his insurance excess of $1,000 and so I have awarded that. The landlord has succeeded and so I have awarded the filing fee. Suppression

Both parties have applied for name suppression. The landlord is entitled to it because he has succeeded. I find that the tenant should have it as well. There is very little public interest in the tenant being named. This damage was an unfortunate accident, and I accept that the tenant was unaware of it. It would be unfair to name him in the published order.