What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5350005 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 5350005?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5350005?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5350005?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12765050-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5350005 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 5350005?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5350005?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5350005?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12765050-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5350005 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5350005 — net $1,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$1,000.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,028.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,028.00

The landlord attended the video hearing on 21 November 2025.

The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. A telephone call was made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The call went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing had been given to the tenant. A notice of hearing was sent to the tenant on 17 October 2025. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was provided to the tenant.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $1,500.00.

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.

The landlord says that a bathroom sink was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord provided photos of the damage. The photos show that a hole has been made in the sink.

The landlord said that the tenant had told them that a hot pot had been picked up. The pot had then been thrown in the sink causing the damage.

The landlord provided an invoice for repairs. The landlord said that a similar ceramic sink was not readily available and even if it had been available, it would have resulted in a more expensive repair. The work required to cut the bench to fit the new sink resulted in an overall cheaper cost.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amount ordered is proven.

I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The landlord’s evidence was that the premises were constructed in 1990 but otherwise, the sink had been in good condition for its age. But for the damage, the sink retained some value. Taking those factors into account, I consider that the appropriate award of compensation is $1,000.00

As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5350005 — net $1,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$1,000.00	Repairs
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 landlord’s name and identifying details.
Tweeny Drollet-Paunga must pay [The landlord/s] $1,028.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing on 21 November 2025.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. A telephone call was made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The call went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing had been given to the tenant. A notice of hearing was sent to the tenant on 17 October 2025. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was provided to the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $1,500.00.
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.
The landlord says that a bathroom sink was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord provided photos of the damage. The photos show that a hole has been made in the sink.
The landlord said that the tenant had told them that a hot pot had been picked up. The pot had then been thrown in the sink causing the damage.
The landlord provided an invoice for repairs. The landlord said that a similar ceramic sink was not readily available and even if it had been available, it would have resulted in a more expensive repair. The work required to cut the bench to fit the new sink resulted in an overall cheaper cost.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proven.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The landlord’s evidence was that the premises were constructed in 1990 but otherwise, the sink had been in good condition for its age. But for the damage, the sink retained some value. Taking those factors into account, I consider that the appropriate award of compensation is $1,000.00
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5350005 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5350005 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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