What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5356242?

The tribunal order states: Linda Hunt-Gage must pay Eves Realty Limited $1,028.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5356242?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356242?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356242?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13104364-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5356242?

The tribunal order states: Linda Hunt-Gage must pay Eves Realty Limited $1,028.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5356242?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356242?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356242?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13104364-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 48 Elizabeth Street, Victoria, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356242 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356242 — net $1,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Concrete - Insurance Excess	$1,000.00	Repairs: Concrete - Insurance Excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,028.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,028.00

Linda Hunt-Gage must pay Eves Realty Limited $1,028.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Repairs: Concrete - Insurance Excess$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$1,028.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,028.00

The application for termination is dismissed.

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing by video.

The hearing was scheduled to take place by video. The tenant did not attend by the link provided in the Notice of Hearing and did not call into the hearing following the instructions on the Notice of Hearing. I was advised by Registry staff that the tenant presented in person at Court, after the scheduled hearing time.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and compensation for damage.

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.

The landlord took me through a series of photographs during the hearing. It appears that paths at the premises were old, with cracks and possibly uneven. Sometime between April and August 2025 the tenant applied a cement/plaster type product to the paths, this appears to have been an attempt to smooth them and fill cracks. There is no record of the tenant requesting repairs before she carried out the work. It is not clear whether repairs were required, or whether the paths were in reasonable condition for their age. In any event, the tenant should have notified the landlord if she had concerns with the paths, and before undertaking any repair attempts herself. See s40 RTA.

The tenant’s work did not improve the paths; they did not look better and did not appear any more even. The landlord issued a 14-day notice to the tenant to remove whatever she had applied to the paths. She did not do so. A contractor was engaged by the landlord’s insurer and the paths have been restored.

The tenant’s repair attempt is damage to the paths. The landlord is entitled to recover the insurance excess, as claimed.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

The tenant has breached their obligations by damaging the concrete paths at the premises. The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The tenant’s attempts at repairing the paths was misguided, but this is not a situation of deliberate or malicious damage or destruction of property. I am not persuaded that it would be fair or reasonable to end this long-standing tenancy because of the tenant’s work on the paths.

The application for termination is dismissed.

As the landlord was the successful party, I have also awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356242 — net $1,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Concrete - Insurance Excess	$1,000.00	Repairs: Concrete - Insurance Excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,028.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,028.00

Order

Linda Hunt-Gage must pay Eves Realty Limited $1,028.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Repairs: Concrete - Insurance Excess$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$1,028.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,028.00
The application for termination is dismissed.

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing by video.
The hearing was scheduled to take place by video. The tenant did not attend by the link provided in the Notice of Hearing and did not call into the hearing following the instructions on the Notice of Hearing. I was advised by Registry staff that the tenant presented in person at Court, after the scheduled hearing time.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and compensation for damage.

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.
The landlord took me through a series of photographs during the hearing. It appears that paths at the premises were old, with cracks and possibly uneven. Sometime between April and August 2025 the tenant applied a cement/plaster type product to the paths, this appears to have been an attempt to smooth them and fill cracks. There is no record of the tenant requesting repairs before she carried out the work. It is not clear whether repairs were required, or whether the paths were in reasonable condition for their age. In any event, the tenant should have notified the landlord if she had concerns with the paths, and before undertaking any repair attempts herself. See s40 RTA.
The tenant’s work did not improve the paths; they did not look better and did not appear any more even. The landlord issued a 14-day notice to the tenant to remove whatever she had applied to the paths. She did not do so. A contractor was engaged by the landlord’s insurer and the paths have been restored.
The tenant’s repair attempt is damage to the paths. The landlord is entitled to recover the insurance excess, as claimed.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant has breached their obligations by damaging the concrete paths at the premises. The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The tenant’s attempts at repairing the paths was misguided, but this is not a situation of deliberate or malicious damage or destruction of property. I am not persuaded that it would be fair or reasonable to end this long-standing tenancy because of the tenant’s work on the paths.
The application for termination is dismissed.
As the landlord was the successful party, I have also awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356242 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 6, 48 Elizabeth Street, Victoria, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356242 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 6, 48 Elizabeth Street, Victoria, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions