What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356599 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 5356599?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $3,091.59 awarded to landlord; Water Charges: $1,193.49 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356599?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356599?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13073288-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356599 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 5356599?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $3,091.59 awarded to landlord; Water Charges: $1,193.49 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356599?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356599?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13073288-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356599 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356599 — net $3,733.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 11 September 2025	$3,091.59	Rent to 11 September 2025
Repairs (insurance excess	$3,000.00	Repairs (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Water charges to 9 September 2025	$1,193.49	Water charges to 9 September 2025
Net award	$3,733.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,733.08

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s names and identifying details. 2. 3.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 3 February 2026. One of the tenants attended by telephone (Ms D). Two tenants attended in person. The remaining tenant (Mr V) did not attend.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent and Water
The tenancy ended on 11 September 2025 when the tenants were evicted for breach of a mediated order. The tenants complained that they had only missed an arrears payment by a day. However, it was not suggested that the landlord did not have the right to evict.
The landlord provided rent records which support the claim for arrears.
The tenants disputed the water charges on the basis they may have included a period after they left. The water charges cover the period to 9 September 2025 when an actual meter reading was taken. I can see no reason why the tenants are not liable for the water charges. Damage
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.
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. Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional.
The landlord provided a quote for $9,289.70 for repairs to bedrooms 1 and 2, the bathroom, and for rubbish removal. The landlord made an insurance claim. The assessor identified four claims each attracting the insurance excess of $750.00. The landlord asks for compensation for the uninsured loss of $3,000.00. I understood the claim for rubbish removal ($250.00 plus GST) was not pursued.
The evidence from the parties indicates that the main damage was to the walls and doors of the bedrooms occupied by Mr V and Ms D, who were in a relationship at the time. There was limited or no damage to the rooms occupied by the remaining tenants, who said they should not be held responsible for the damage upstairs.
The tenancy agreement provided, at clause 26 headed “Liability”, that the tenants were jointly and severally liable for breach of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
It follows that, while some of the tenants may be less to blame for the damage, or not to blame at all, all four tenants are jointly liable for the damage, in the same way that they are jointly liable for the rent arrears. This outcome is in accordance with the general principles of law which relate to the matter. The tenants agreed to be jointly liable, and this is also the position at common law (Harrison v Shields (DC Dunedin, NP 435/00 2 September 2002, Judge MacAskill)).
I have previously considered at length whether section 85(2) of the Act enables the Tribunal to depart from joint liability when damage is caused to premises during an abusive relationship (Rent Shop v Tenant [2021] NZTT 4310225 at paragraphs 19-28). Section 85(2) provides: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
The answer, in my view, is that the Tribunal is unable to decide a case based solely on its own views of the substantial merits and justice of the matter. The determination must be based on general principles of law, applied consistently with the merits and justice of the case. This means a tenant would not, for example, be liable for tenant damage that could be shown to have occurred after they ceased to be a tenant.
There was also damage to a kitchen cupboard and the landlord said smoke alarms had been removed. The landlord’s photograph shows a missing cupboard door. The tenant said the door fell off and had been left behind, but the landlord said it could not be found. The cost of replacing the door was estimated at $802.96 and insurers settled the claim for $52.96 after deduction of the excess.
The tenants said they informed the landlord when the cupboard door was damaged. The landlord said the issue with the door was more than just a maintenance matter. I tend to agree because the entire door has come off and a custom-built replacement door will need to be installed. The tenants have not disproved liability for this damage, which is more than fair wear and tear. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
The landlord has been successful and is awarded the filing fee.
The landlord is granted name suppression as requested.
Although the proceedings do not relate directly to withdrawal from a tenancy for family violence, taking a liberal approach to section 95A(1A) I have decided to grant name suppression to the tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356599 — net $3,733.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 11 September 2025	$3,091.59	Rent to 11 September 2025
Repairs (insurance excess	$3,000.00	Repairs (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Water charges to 9 September 2025	$1,193.49	Water charges to 9 September 2025
Net award	$3,733.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,733.08

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s names and identifying details. 2. 3.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 3 February 2026. One of the tenants attended by telephone (Ms D). Two tenants attended in person. The remaining tenant (Mr V) did not attend.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent and Water
The tenancy ended on 11 September 2025 when the tenants were evicted for breach of a mediated order. The tenants complained that they had only missed an arrears payment by a day. However, it was not suggested that the landlord did not have the right to evict.
The landlord provided rent records which support the claim for arrears.
The tenants disputed the water charges on the basis they may have included a period after they left. The water charges cover the period to 9 September 2025 when an actual meter reading was taken. I can see no reason why the tenants are not liable for the water charges. Damage
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.
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. Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional.
The landlord provided a quote for $9,289.70 for repairs to bedrooms 1 and 2, the bathroom, and for rubbish removal. The landlord made an insurance claim. The assessor identified four claims each attracting the insurance excess of $750.00. The landlord asks for compensation for the uninsured loss of $3,000.00. I understood the claim for rubbish removal ($250.00 plus GST) was not pursued.
The evidence from the parties indicates that the main damage was to the walls and doors of the bedrooms occupied by Mr V and Ms D, who were in a relationship at the time. There was limited or no damage to the rooms occupied by the remaining tenants, who said they should not be held responsible for the damage upstairs.
The tenancy agreement provided, at clause 26 headed “Liability”, that the tenants were jointly and severally liable for breach of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
It follows that, while some of the tenants may be less to blame for the damage, or not to blame at all, all four tenants are jointly liable for the damage, in the same way that they are jointly liable for the rent arrears. This outcome is in accordance with the general principles of law which relate to the matter. The tenants agreed to be jointly liable, and this is also the position at common law (Harrison v Shields (DC Dunedin, NP 435/00 2 September 2002, Judge MacAskill)).
I have previously considered at length whether section 85(2) of the Act enables the Tribunal to depart from joint liability when damage is caused to premises during an abusive relationship (Rent Shop v Tenant [2021] NZTT 4310225 at paragraphs 19-28). Section 85(2) provides: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
The answer, in my view, is that the Tribunal is unable to decide a case based solely on its own views of the substantial merits and justice of the matter. The determination must be based on general principles of law, applied consistently with the merits and justice of the case. This means a tenant would not, for example, be liable for tenant damage that could be shown to have occurred after they ceased to be a tenant.
There was also damage to a kitchen cupboard and the landlord said smoke alarms had been removed. The landlord’s photograph shows a missing cupboard door. The tenant said the door fell off and had been left behind, but the landlord said it could not be found. The cost of replacing the door was estimated at $802.96 and insurers settled the claim for $52.96 after deduction of the excess.
The tenants said they informed the landlord when the cupboard door was damaged. The landlord said the issue with the door was more than just a maintenance matter. I tend to agree because the entire door has come off and a custom-built replacement door will need to be installed. The tenants have not disproved liability for this damage, which is more than fair wear and tear. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
The landlord has been successful and is awarded the filing fee.
The landlord is granted name suppression as requested.
Although the proceedings do not relate directly to withdrawal from a tenancy for family violence, taking a liberal approach to section 95A(1A) I have decided to grant name suppression to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356599 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356599 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions