What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5345284 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5345284?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5345284?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5345284?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13082194-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5345284 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5345284?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5345284?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5345284?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13082194-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 11, 17 Georgia Terrace, Albany, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5345284 — Property damage

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,149.13 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. Both parties joined by phone.
This matter was first heard on 16 December 2025. That hearing was adjourned to allow both parties the opportunity to file additional evidence. At that hearing the landlord confirmed that they sought compensation from the tenant for damage as follows:

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B 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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 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. 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.
During the hearing the landlord referred me to photos of damage at the end of the tenancy.
The only clearly identifiable damage was two holes, one on each side wall of the garage. There was no photo of damaged carpet and it was not possible to identify any damage to bedroom two. The routine inspection reports taken during the tenancy did not reveal any damage either.
While it is clear that the damage walls were damaged at the end of the tenancy, there were no ingoing photos of the garage showing the garage undamaged. I was told that the landlord was not managing the property at the start of the tenancy and so a comprehensive ingoing inspection report was not completed. The routine inspection reports taken during the tenancy do not shed any light on this issue as there are items stacked against the walls in all photos of the garage.
In the circumstances the landlord has not proven the damage was caused during the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage is therefore dismissed. Council bin swap fee
The landlord said that tenant was often mingling general household waste with recycling and so the landlord asked if she would like a bigger bin. The landlord then arranged this, which was to occur when the tenant put her bin out, but the tenant did not put her bin out as instructed and so the larger bin was never received.
The landlord provided a copy of the invoice from Auckland Council for a bin swap in the amount of $40.00, together with an invoice for that amount to the tenant.
The tenant said that she did not think that the landlord had told her when to put the bin out. She acknowledged receiving an email but said it was only sent the day before and she didn’t open the email in time to see it.
I do not consider that the tenant should be liable for the cost of the bin swap, particularly as it does not appear that there was any follow up (at least on the evidence filed) and so she did not receive a larger bin. Bond
The balance of the tenant’s bond of $2,149.13 remains held at the Bond Centre. As the landlord’s claim has been dismissed this will now be released to the tenant. Name suppression and filing fee
The landlord has not been the successful party and so I have not reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant has been the successful party and so is entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,149.13 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. Both parties joined by phone.
This matter was first heard on 16 December 2025. That hearing was adjourned to allow both parties the opportunity to file additional evidence. At that hearing the landlord confirmed that they sought compensation from the tenant for damage as follows:

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B 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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 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. 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.
During the hearing the landlord referred me to photos of damage at the end of the tenancy.
The only clearly identifiable damage was two holes, one on each side wall of the garage. There was no photo of damaged carpet and it was not possible to identify any damage to bedroom two. The routine inspection reports taken during the tenancy did not reveal any damage either.
While it is clear that the damage walls were damaged at the end of the tenancy, there were no ingoing photos of the garage showing the garage undamaged. I was told that the landlord was not managing the property at the start of the tenancy and so a comprehensive ingoing inspection report was not completed. The routine inspection reports taken during the tenancy do not shed any light on this issue as there are items stacked against the walls in all photos of the garage.
In the circumstances the landlord has not proven the damage was caused during the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage is therefore dismissed. Council bin swap fee
The landlord said that tenant was often mingling general household waste with recycling and so the landlord asked if she would like a bigger bin. The landlord then arranged this, which was to occur when the tenant put her bin out, but the tenant did not put her bin out as instructed and so the larger bin was never received.
The landlord provided a copy of the invoice from Auckland Council for a bin swap in the amount of $40.00, together with an invoice for that amount to the tenant.
The tenant said that she did not think that the landlord had told her when to put the bin out. She acknowledged receiving an email but said it was only sent the day before and she didn’t open the email in time to see it.
I do not consider that the tenant should be liable for the cost of the bin swap, particularly as it does not appear that there was any follow up (at least on the evidence filed) and so she did not receive a larger bin. Bond
The balance of the tenant’s bond of $2,149.13 remains held at the Bond Centre. As the landlord’s claim has been dismissed this will now be released to the tenant. Name suppression and filing fee
The landlord has not been the successful party and so I have not reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant has been the successful party and so is entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5345284 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 11, 17 Georgia Terrace, Albany, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5345284 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 11, 17 Georgia Terrace, Albany, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions