What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359656 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 5359656?

Compensation: loss of amenity 88 wee…: $880.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Remove Decals And Film: $100.00 awarded to landlord; To The Decorative Concrete: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359656?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359656?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13062177-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359656 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 5359656?

Compensation: loss of amenity 88 wee…: $880.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Remove Decals And Film: $100.00 awarded to landlord; To The Decorative Concrete: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359656?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359656?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13062177-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

419 Takapu Road, Takapu Valley, Wellington 5028 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5359656 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359656 — net $973.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: to the decorative concrete	$1,725.00		Repairs: to the decorative concrete
Remove decals and film	$100.00		Remove decals and film
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: loss of amenity 88 weeks x		$880.00	loss of amenity 88 weeks x
Total award	$1,853.00	$880.00
Net award	$973.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$973.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359656 — net $973.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: to the decorative concrete	$1,725.00		Repairs: to the decorative concrete
Remove decals and film	$100.00		Remove decals and film
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: loss of amenity 88 weeks x		$880.00	loss of amenity 88 weeks x
Total award	$1,853.00	$880.00
Net award	$973.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$973.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Daleen Grobler, Magiel Daniel Grobler, Michael Grobler and Stephanie Van Staden to pay [The landlord/s] $973.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The owners were represented by their lawyer, Mr Sheehan. I clarified at the hearing that the owners should be named as the landlord for these applications. The property management company who acted as agent for the owner during the tenancy was also represented at the hearing.
The tenants rented a house on a rural property. Their tenancy started in 2023. At the start of 2024 the tenant agreement was amended to include a shed. The intention was the shed would be used to store the many vehicles and parts the tenants had in and around the tenancy premises. The tenancy ended on 30 September 2025 and the parties cannot agree how the bond will be refunded. Both parties have applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The questions I have to decide include: • Are the tenants responsible for damage? • Did the tenants fail to report damage? • Was the landlord allowed to come and stay in the dwelling attached to the shed? • Did the landlord breach the duty to maintain and provide potable water? • Were there problems with the power? • Should the tenants get compensation because the landlord continued to use the shed?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has applied for compensation for damage, for a replacement cooktop, and for significant repairs to the driveway. The landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenants 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. See section 49B(3)(a) 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 claim for the driveway
There is a claim for repairs to the uphill driveway which goes from the main road up to the house. The landlord played a video at the hearing showing where the repairs have been carried out. The landlord’s submission is the tenants were running a commercial business from the shed and the driveway deteriorated significantly over this time because of the heavy trucks going up and down. This is the landlord’s claim to prove.
The landlord’s evidence is the property was either occupied by the owner or tenanted from approximately 2002 with no significant damage to the driveway. The driveway then suffered significant degradation within 6 months because the tenants used it for the tow truck business, operated without owner’s consent. The submission is:
The property manager wrote to the tenants in November 2024 and asked if they were running a commercial operation and if so to stop. The letter also asked the tenants provide a plan for storing the 25 cars, four trucks and parts that were on site. There was no mention of the driveway in this letter. In June 2025 the property manager wrote again explaining that the tenants needed to stop driving trucks on the driveway because of the poor condition.
The tenants said the deterioration of the driveway was fair wear and tear. As part of the supporting information (provided to the landlord prior to the hearing) the tenants had photos of various vehicles parked in and around the driveway at different times during the tenancy. Each of these photos is also a record of wear on the driveway. At the hearing the tenants produced some short videos showing water running down the side of the driveway, over the edges of the seal where the landlord claims there is damage.
The tenants said they did not run a business from the house or the shed. They said the tow truck went up the driveway with a load once during the tenancy. The tow truck did go up and down each day until June 2025, but stopped after the email from the property manager. The tenants said the driveway was poorly constructed and relied on the invoice from [Repairer], who carried out the repairs, which states:
I am not persuaded the tenants should pay for the repairs to the driveway. There is no record of the condition of the driveway at the start of the tenancy which means I cannot compare the condition with the photos provided by [Repairer] with their quote. I find the landlord has not proved there was damage during the tenancy.
Regular inspections were carried out and the condition of the driveway was only raised in June 2025. Other than the number of vehicles at the property the landlord had no supporting evidence, such as photos or witness statements from neighbours, to prove the tenants were running two businesses and that heavy vehicles used the driveway. The fact the tenants used the tenancy address as the company address for a towing business is not proof there was a towing business at the property. The landlord has not proved the tenants were running a business, so I cannot conclude there was increased wear because there was commercial use.
[Repairer] described a driveway that was constructed without hard edges and that would wear with regular truck traffic. I am persuaded by the tenant’s submission that the repairs to the edges were needed because of the way the driveway was constructed.
The landlord knew the tenants had many vehicles throughout the tenancy and even offered the shed for storage. There was nothing in the tenancy agreement which limited the types of vehicles that could use the driveway. The tenants’ submission the original property manager allowed them to have cars and trucks is supported by the text messages sent at the start of the tenancy.
It seems most likely to me the driveway was in need of maintenance and any damage at the end of the tenancy was fair wear and tear. The claim for the driveway is dismissed.
The associated claim the tenants were not using the property ‘principally for residential purposes’ is dismissed.
The claim that the tenants did not advise the landlord of the repairs they occasionally carried out to the driveway is dismissed. The tenants absolutely should have told the landlord about any damage and got permission to carry out repairs. However I am not persuaded I should make orders against the tenants because the landlord visited often and could also see the driveway was in need of maintenance. There is an equal obligation on the landlord to maintain and repair. The claim for the painting
The landlord paid $3,450 for repairs to walls and ceilings and to remove decals and decorative film left by the tenants. The landlord wants the tenants to pay because the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The tenants do not agree.
I have considered the photos taken at the end of the tenancy. I agree the tenants should have removed the decals and film. The invoices are not itemised so I have estimated $100 for the cost of removing these. The landlord had no photos showing there was damage after the decals and film were removed, so this part of the claim is not proved.
I have considered the photos taken at the entry inspection and at the final inspection. The most noticeable marks are in the garage, but it is a garage that was painted 5 years ago. I am not persuaded the photos show damage that is more than fair wear and tear. This part of the claim is dismissed. The claim for the cooktop
There is a claim for a replacement cooktop because of a large crack across the glass cooktop. The landlord has proved the damage happened during the tenancy. The landlord said the cooktop was broken at the end of the tenancy, most likely from an impact. The tenants do not agree to the claim because the cooktop cracked while no one was using it. They reported the damage to the property manager and continued to use the cracked cooktop for the rest of the tenancy.
It seems most likely to me that this damage was fair wear and tear. The cooktop was 10 years old. Even though it looked bad it could still be used. This claim is dismissed. The claim for the concrete
There is a claim for $1,725 for repairs to the decorative concrete outside the lounge. The decorative concrete is a feature right around the outside of the house. The landlord has proved there was damage during the tenancy. The concrete has been bleached and marked in the area where the tenants had their spa pool. The tenants said there was another patch where the concrete had also lightened, so it was unlikely the spa pool was to blame.
I have considered the photos and the invoice. It seems most likely to me the marks were associated with the use of the spa pool. I find the marks are more than fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. This claim is proved and allowed.

Was the landlord allowed to come and stay in the dwelling attached to the shed?

When the parties agreed to rent the shed at the start of 2024 they signed a variation to the tenancy agreement. The variation specifically excluded the attached dwelling, which is an area above the shed. When the tenants moved into the house other tenants lived in the dwelling. After the variation was signed the landlord started staying in the dwelling, sometimes for weeks at a time. The tenants’ submission is this was a breach of the original tenancy agreement which never disclosed the landlord would stay in the dwelling. They are concerned about whether the landlord was on the premises and in the dwelling lawfully. They are aggrieved because they could not use the house and shed as expected when the landlord was there. This was especially disappointing when the landlord stayed in the dwelling while the tenants were preparing the shed for a wedding. They also raised concerns about the lawfulness of the dwelling. This is the tenants’ claim to prove.
In reply the landlord said the lawfulness was irrelevant because he was staying in the dwelling himself. The dwelling was deliberately excluded from the variation to the original tenancy agreement so he could use the accommodation while he was carrying out maintenance and repairs and working on the land. The variation states:
I am not persuaded there was a breach of the original tenancy agreement. The variation amended the original tenancy agreement by adding in the agreement to rent the shed. The dwelling, which the tenants knew had been occupied previously by tenants, was excluded. The claims relating to the tenancy agreement are dismissed.
At the hearing the tenants submitted that the dwelling was unlawful premises. Unlawful premises are those that cannot be lived in lawfully and should not be rented out, for example because there is no building consent, and are covered by section 78A RTA. I find the lawfulness of the dwelling would not impact the lawfulness of the house. This is because the dwelling is not close to the house and so I cannot see there would be any safety issues for the house. The claim relating to lawfulness is dismissed.
I am not persuaded the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice. Section 48 RTA provides that a landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. However, section 48(7) RTA does not limit entry to the attached land and facilities, which in this case would include the outside of the house and the shed. It seems likely to me the tenant at home allowed the landlord and the contractors into the house, so there was entry by consent. I find there was no breach of section 48 by the landlord and this claim is dismissed.
As for quiet enjoyment, section 38 RTA provides that the landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenants in their use of the premises. I accept the tenants’ evidence they found the landlord’s presence limiting and it impacted on their ability to enjoy the house and use the shed as anticipated. They regularly contacted the property manager expressing surprise and concern when the landlord turned up to stay. The landlord would text ahead or get the property manager to email and ask the tenants to turn on the hot water and they felt obliged to be helpful. The landlord sometimes asked for help while he was staying in the dwelling, for example to move his container out of the shed, and the tenants felt they could not say no. I am not persuaded there was a breach of quiet enjoyment because the concerns relate to when the landlord used the dwelling, which was allowed. The tenants would have been within their rights to say no to the requests for help. All claims relating to quiet enjoyment are dismissed.
The agreement the landlord would pay $10 a day as a contribution to power while he stayed in the dwelling was not recorded in the variation, but it seems most likely to me this arrangement was agreed because the tenants accepted the payments. I find the tenants choosing to share their power for $10 a day was not a breach of section 39 RTA, which provides that tenants are responsible for outgoings which are exclusively attributable to their use. The tenants have not provided me with any supporting evidence to show the payments were not fair. The claims relating to the $10 a day are dismissed.

Did the landlord breach the duty to maintain and provide potable water?

The tenants claim that the landlord breached its obligations under section 45 of the RTA which requires landlords to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and have adequate systems to provide potable water. On 13 December 2023 the tenants reported problems with the water pressure. The work done shows there were dirty gutters, sludge in the tanks and dirty water filters. The tenants were without water for four days. In the week after 13 December the landlord attended to maintenance of the tanks and filters and provided two tanks of water. The tenants said the gutters and the roof were not properly cleaned until the following March. Their submission is this impacted on their ability to use the house and the water.
The landlord replied that the water issues were attended to promptly. The gutters were cleaned during an annual house wash and there were guards on the gutters. The water system included filters, and a black light system. The landlord suggested they ask the tenants who were living in the dwelling at the time if they would share their facilities.
I am not persuaded the tenants’ have proved this claim. The evidence shows the landlord acted promptly. The inconvenience of not having a water supply was acknowledged and the landlord offered to pay for water. The water system described seems adequate to me, based on my experience of similar Tribunal cases. The landlord’s suggestion they ask the other tenants for help was not a breach of the RTA. I find the landlord acted reasonably and the claim is dismissed.

Were there problems with the power?

The tenants submitted that the landlord had installed outdoor plugs which got wet and caused power failures. The landlord said all electrical work installed correctly. The tenants did not have any supporting evidence and this claim is dismissed. Should the tenants get compensation because the landlord continued to use the shed?
The variation to the tenancy agreement was signed in January 2024. The tenants said it took until the end of March 2024 for the landlord to remove his container from the shed, and he kept some belongings and furniture stacked against the wall for the duration of the tenancy. The tenants said the landlord was dismissive of the tenants wanting to use the shed while he was staying in the dwelling, telling them to go home. At the very end of the tenancy the landlord parked his quad bike and trailer in the shed. The tenants said there was a loss of amenity because they could not use the shed as intended. This is the tenants’ claim to prove and they provided me with photos showing the belongings and the quad bike. They have claimed compensation in the amount of 50% of the rent paid for the shed during the tenancy.
The landlord said he would occasionally enter the shed for the purposes of maintenance and to turn on utilities and hot water. He did not agree he prevented free use of the shed. He agreed he stored his quad bike in the shed at the end of the tenancy because of a weather warning. He provided a photo showing his belongings were stored against a wall and had a tarpaulin covering them. The landlord estimated the furniture took up less than 1% of the floor space and the container about 9% of the floor space until it was moved. The landlord submitted there was no meaningful loss for the tenants.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I am persuaded there was a loss of amenity for the tenants. For the first 10 weeks the container and belongings took up a lot of space. For the 78 weeks after that the loss of floor space was limited and the landlord only entered the shed when he stayed in the dwelling. I find this still interfered with the tenants right to use the shed. They had to be mindful of the landlord’s belongings and were wary when he was staying. I find the landlord should pay compensation, but this is limited to $10 a week for the 88 weeks the variation was in place because the loss was minor for most of the tenancy. Other orders
I have sent a request to the Bond Centre.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants’ names will be published because there is public interest when tenants owe money from the bond at the end of the tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359656 — Property damage at 419 Takapu Road, Takapu Valley, Wellington 5028

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359656 — Property damage at 419 Takapu Road, Takapu Valley, Wellington 5028

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the landlord allowed to come and stay in the dwelling attached to the shed?

Did the landlord breach the duty to maintain and provide potable water?

Were there problems with the power?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the landlord allowed to come and stay in the dwelling attached to the shed?

Did the landlord breach the duty to maintain and provide potable water?

Were there problems with the power?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions