What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359643 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 5359643?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359643?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359643?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12922075-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359643 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 5359643?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359643?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359643?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12922075-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5359643 — Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

The landlord is to pay $28.00 to the tenant immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted via teleconference.
This tenancy began on 7 August 2022 and ended on 16 June 2025.
The tenant has applied for the refund of his bond of $2,380.00. This is application number 5359643. He states in his application that the landlord had sought payment for various costs, without providing invoices or a clear basis for the amounts. The landlord’s insurer managed the fire claim separately and his own insurer had agreed to cover the fire-related excess.
The landlord has filed a counterclaim (application 5368528), seeking payment of $2,200.00 from the bond for the insurance excess. The landlord considers the tenant to be liable for the insurance excess incurred following damage to the premises from a fire in the kitchen, and another claim for damage to the study/sauna room.
At the hearing, the tenant gave evidence regarding an incident that occurred on 9 May 2025 while he was cooking. A fire broke out in the kitchen, which extinguished itself without the involvement of emergency services. The resulting damage was confined to the kitchen, with some smoke damage extending to the lounge. He required hospital treatment for burns to his right forearm.
The tenant also described a separate incident in which the glass to the sauna room shattered. He clarified that the room referred to as the sauna room is essentially an office. He states that the office had one heater in it with a thermostat, and the glass in the office shattered.
Both incidents were investigated by the insurance company, and the tenant was interviewed by the insurer’s investigator. The insurance claim was accepted as accidental, and his insurer covered the cost of the excess. He confirmed that there was nothing intentional or malicious in either incident.
The landlord states that they went to the house, took photographs and called the insurance company. An investigator came. Glass was shattered and a heater was on. The fire in the kitchen was intense. While the insurance company completed a report, they refused to give him a copy of it.
The landlord submits that the damage was wilful and there was damage to the walls, alarm system, kitchen and pantry. There was further damage to the sauna room, which was a separate claim and not treated as part of the fire damage.
In response to the tenant’s evidence, the landlord clarified that he was not alleging the tenant was a bad tenant. The landlord confirmed that the tenant paid his rent regularly and stated that his claim was primarily to recover the loss arising from the damage. Legal framework
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage, the 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 of the RTA.
Fair wear and tear is damage caused as a result of normal, expected everyday use. This is often the result of a gradual deterioration over time.
Damage is intentional where the damage is done on purpose (the person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose), or where a person allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Careless damage is damage caused by an inadvertent lack of reasonable care.
Accidental damage, where there is no tenant liability, is damage that is greater than fair wear and tear, but could not have been reasonably prevented.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the RTA applies. 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the RTA.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that the landlord’s claim has not been established to the required standard. While the landlord has provided some photographic evidence of the damage, the evidence is incomplete. The occurrence of damage is not disputed. The photographic evidence confirms the presence of smoke damage resulting from the fire. However, the tenant states that the insurance assessor interviewed him and, following its investigation, accepted the claim as being accidental. It is clear that the insurer assessed the damage and completed a report. However, this report has not been provided to the Tribunal.
There are conflicting claims regarding responsibility for the damage. The tenant claims that the insurance company found the damage to be the result of an accident. On the other hand, the landlord asserts that the tenant is responsible for the damage and seeks to recover the insurance excess, but has not provided sufficient supporting evidence. There has been no report from the insurance assessor or explanation from the insurer. If the damage was considered by the insurer to be accidental, then the tenant will not be liable for it.
As stated above, it is for the party making the claim to prove their claim with evidence. In this case, I find the landlord has been unable to prove that the tenant is liable for the insurance excess arising from the two claims.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
Consequently, the tenant is entitled to the full refund of the bond, which is awarded above. Filing fee and name suppression
Because the tenant has been successful, the landlord is to pay the tenant’s filing fee. The tenant is entitled to name suppression on the same basis.
The landlord does not request name suppression.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

The landlord is to pay $28.00 to the tenant immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted via teleconference.
This tenancy began on 7 August 2022 and ended on 16 June 2025.
The tenant has applied for the refund of his bond of $2,380.00. This is application number 5359643. He states in his application that the landlord had sought payment for various costs, without providing invoices or a clear basis for the amounts. The landlord’s insurer managed the fire claim separately and his own insurer had agreed to cover the fire-related excess.
The landlord has filed a counterclaim (application 5368528), seeking payment of $2,200.00 from the bond for the insurance excess. The landlord considers the tenant to be liable for the insurance excess incurred following damage to the premises from a fire in the kitchen, and another claim for damage to the study/sauna room.
At the hearing, the tenant gave evidence regarding an incident that occurred on 9 May 2025 while he was cooking. A fire broke out in the kitchen, which extinguished itself without the involvement of emergency services. The resulting damage was confined to the kitchen, with some smoke damage extending to the lounge. He required hospital treatment for burns to his right forearm.
The tenant also described a separate incident in which the glass to the sauna room shattered. He clarified that the room referred to as the sauna room is essentially an office. He states that the office had one heater in it with a thermostat, and the glass in the office shattered.
Both incidents were investigated by the insurance company, and the tenant was interviewed by the insurer’s investigator. The insurance claim was accepted as accidental, and his insurer covered the cost of the excess. He confirmed that there was nothing intentional or malicious in either incident.
The landlord states that they went to the house, took photographs and called the insurance company. An investigator came. Glass was shattered and a heater was on. The fire in the kitchen was intense. While the insurance company completed a report, they refused to give him a copy of it.
The landlord submits that the damage was wilful and there was damage to the walls, alarm system, kitchen and pantry. There was further damage to the sauna room, which was a separate claim and not treated as part of the fire damage.
In response to the tenant’s evidence, the landlord clarified that he was not alleging the tenant was a bad tenant. The landlord confirmed that the tenant paid his rent regularly and stated that his claim was primarily to recover the loss arising from the damage. Legal framework
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage, the 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 of the RTA.
Fair wear and tear is damage caused as a result of normal, expected everyday use. This is often the result of a gradual deterioration over time.
Damage is intentional where the damage is done on purpose (the person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose), or where a person allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Careless damage is damage caused by an inadvertent lack of reasonable care.
Accidental damage, where there is no tenant liability, is damage that is greater than fair wear and tear, but could not have been reasonably prevented.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the RTA applies. 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the RTA.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that the landlord’s claim has not been established to the required standard. While the landlord has provided some photographic evidence of the damage, the evidence is incomplete. The occurrence of damage is not disputed. The photographic evidence confirms the presence of smoke damage resulting from the fire. However, the tenant states that the insurance assessor interviewed him and, following its investigation, accepted the claim as being accidental. It is clear that the insurer assessed the damage and completed a report. However, this report has not been provided to the Tribunal.
There are conflicting claims regarding responsibility for the damage. The tenant claims that the insurance company found the damage to be the result of an accident. On the other hand, the landlord asserts that the tenant is responsible for the damage and seeks to recover the insurance excess, but has not provided sufficient supporting evidence. There has been no report from the insurance assessor or explanation from the insurer. If the damage was considered by the insurer to be accidental, then the tenant will not be liable for it.
As stated above, it is for the party making the claim to prove their claim with evidence. In this case, I find the landlord has been unable to prove that the tenant is liable for the insurance excess arising from the two claims.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
Consequently, the tenant is entitled to the full refund of the bond, which is awarded above. Filing fee and name suppression
Because the tenant has been successful, the landlord is to pay the tenant’s filing fee. The tenant is entitled to name suppression on the same basis.
The landlord does not request name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359643 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359643 — Property damage

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

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions