What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5360802 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 5360802?

Lawns and Garden Work: $78.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360802?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360802?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13364379-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5360802 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 5360802?

Lawns and Garden Work: $78.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360802?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360802?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13364379-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5360802 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5360802 — net $228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work: Removal of vegetation	$78.00	Lawns and Garden work: Removal of vegetation
Repairs: Painting	$150.00	Repairs: Painting
Net award	$228.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$228.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $228.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $228.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,492.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via video conference on 19 March 2026.
The tenancy was from 20 July 2017 until 15 September 2025.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord applied for compensation for: a. Replacing a bore pump; b. Damaged bathroom vanity; c. Replacement of the oven; d. Removal of vegetation; and e. Filling and painting of holes in walls. Laws regarding cleaning and damages
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. This is for inside and outside the premises.
For the landlord to succeed with damage-related claims, 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The Tribunal has to take 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, the Tribunal takes into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan Bore pump claim
There was a bore pump that had been used by the tenant from the beginning of this tenancy in 2017. It was an external pump for the bore water and was a spare for the house. On 23 September 2023, the tenant emailed the landlord to inform that the bore pump was not working effectively. The tenant said that it was not looked at by a professional and it was not repaired or replaced at the time. According to the tenant, it sat unused outside for 2 years in a partially enclosed bore housing.
The landlord’s claim was that it was working when the tenancy began in 2017, and it was not working in 2023 and that it must have been broken by the tenant.
The landlord said that the valve was broken, and that there was new thread on it showing that it had been touched by someone at some stage.
The landlord had photos of the pump and an invoice for $550.28 for a new Trevoli BJZ150E jet pump.
There was insufficient evidence regarding the age of the original bore pump, the cause of it not working effectively and any evidence of how the valve may have been broken.
The tenant denied having caused the pump to stop working.
I cannot discount fair wear and tear in the situation. There is no evidence to indicate any careless, accidental or intentional damage by the tenant. I dismiss this claim. Damaged bathroom vanity
The landlord claimed $485.00 for the cracked and chipped ceramic vanity basin.
The landlord said that it was new when the tenant moved in.
The tenant claimed that it was only a scratch and denied ever having dropped anything, and denied cracking or damaging the vanity carelessly or intentionally.
The tenant said that they never put anything heavy on it or leaned on it as it was a floating vanity and only partially attached to the wall.
The landlord said that the cracks and chipping could not be considered fair wear and tear.
The landlord’s claim was that although it was not leaking and fully functioning currently, in the future it will eventually need to be replaced as it will leak.
Having seen the photos, I find that the crack at the top by the faucet is fair wear and tear, but the chip in the basin is more than fair wear and tear. I find that it is more likely than not that it was caused carelessly by the tenant or someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission.
Having said that, the damage is not to the extent or justifying an entire bathroom vanity to be replaced.
It is not suggested that it will be repaired before it is eventually replaced at some point in the future.
I do not find that this justifies compensation. I dismiss this claim. Oven replacement
The landlord claimed $1,125.00 for the installation of a new oven.
The oven the tenant was provided with initially had a bent inner upper element, and two stove top elements had been burnt. The upper element was separately replaced but the same thing eventuated. The entire oven ended up being replaced in 2023.
The landlord had provided photos of the old oven before it was replaced showing the bent inner upper oven element and the two elements that seemed to be burnt.
The landlord provided photos of the current oven but with the heating element drip trays removed. There was rust underneath the element drip trays themselves. The oven itself worked without issues.
There was no suggestion that the new oven or the stove top was left with damages.
The landlord applied to the Tribunal seeking for the replacement cost of the first oven.
Taking into account the depreciation rate of 25% and Inland Revenue useful lifespan of 8 years, it is questionable how much the first oven would have been worth when it was replaced.
Furthermore, the tenant denies causing any damage to the inner upper oven element or the two stove top elements from the old oven. I note that the burnt top elements and the bent oven element are all on the same side of the oven. I cannot discount the possibility of the oven being faulty especially with the upper oven element being bent twice the same way.
I do not find that there is enough evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has caused damage to the original oven.
In relation to the new oven, there is no expectation for the tenants to dismantle ovens or the drip trays to check if the oven is clean or without rust inside.
I dismiss the claim for oven replacement. Removal of vegetation
The landlord sought $78.00 for removal of vegetation around the base of the banana tree.
The tenant accepted having left vegetation around the base of the banana tee as it was the most effective way to get good crop of bananas. The tenant believed that that was best to maintain the yard.
The tenant should have discussed this with the landlord. Had that been the case, the parties could have agreed on how it was to be left.
From the photos provided, I find that the base of the banana tree was not left reasonably tidy. I find that the amount sought by the landlord is reasonable.
I order the tenant to pay the landlord $78.00 for vegetation removal from the bond. Filling and painting of holes in walls.
The landlord sought for $200.00 for filling and painting the holes left in walls.
The tenant said that the tenant was a professional plaster and painter and that the holes created by the tenants were filled, sanded and repainted already. The tenant said that the holes shown on the landlord’s photos were of pre-existing holes.
The tenant said that the tenant was told by the landlord that there were no issues with the holes at the end of the tenancy inspection.
The landlord said that the photos provided to the Tribunal were of holes other than the pre-existing ones. The landlord explained that the tenant was given an opportunity to complete the filling and painting of the holes, but the work done was substandard, so the tenant was not given further time to finalise it with another coating of painting.
Having seen the photos provided by the landlord, I accept that the landlord has proven that the holes were not pre-existing and required to be filled and painted.
I find $150.00 to be a reasonable amount to cover the landlord’s costs for filling and painting the holes.
I order the tenant to pay this amount to the landlord from the bond. Reimbursement of the filing fee
As it cannot be said that the landlord has wholly or substantially succeeded with the application, I do not order for any reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5360802 — net $228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work: Removal of vegetation	$78.00	Lawns and Garden work: Removal of vegetation
Repairs: Painting	$150.00	Repairs: Painting
Net award	$228.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$228.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $228.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $228.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,492.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via video conference on 19 March 2026.
The tenancy was from 20 July 2017 until 15 September 2025.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord applied for compensation for: a. Replacing a bore pump; b. Damaged bathroom vanity; c. Replacement of the oven; d. Removal of vegetation; and e. Filling and painting of holes in walls. Laws regarding cleaning and damages
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. This is for inside and outside the premises.
For the landlord to succeed with damage-related claims, 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The Tribunal has to take 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, the Tribunal takes into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan Bore pump claim
There was a bore pump that had been used by the tenant from the beginning of this tenancy in 2017. It was an external pump for the bore water and was a spare for the house. On 23 September 2023, the tenant emailed the landlord to inform that the bore pump was not working effectively. The tenant said that it was not looked at by a professional and it was not repaired or replaced at the time. According to the tenant, it sat unused outside for 2 years in a partially enclosed bore housing.
The landlord’s claim was that it was working when the tenancy began in 2017, and it was not working in 2023 and that it must have been broken by the tenant.
The landlord said that the valve was broken, and that there was new thread on it showing that it had been touched by someone at some stage.
The landlord had photos of the pump and an invoice for $550.28 for a new Trevoli BJZ150E jet pump.
There was insufficient evidence regarding the age of the original bore pump, the cause of it not working effectively and any evidence of how the valve may have been broken.
The tenant denied having caused the pump to stop working.
I cannot discount fair wear and tear in the situation. There is no evidence to indicate any careless, accidental or intentional damage by the tenant. I dismiss this claim. Damaged bathroom vanity
The landlord claimed $485.00 for the cracked and chipped ceramic vanity basin.
The landlord said that it was new when the tenant moved in.
The tenant claimed that it was only a scratch and denied ever having dropped anything, and denied cracking or damaging the vanity carelessly or intentionally.
The tenant said that they never put anything heavy on it or leaned on it as it was a floating vanity and only partially attached to the wall.
The landlord said that the cracks and chipping could not be considered fair wear and tear.
The landlord’s claim was that although it was not leaking and fully functioning currently, in the future it will eventually need to be replaced as it will leak.
Having seen the photos, I find that the crack at the top by the faucet is fair wear and tear, but the chip in the basin is more than fair wear and tear. I find that it is more likely than not that it was caused carelessly by the tenant or someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission.
Having said that, the damage is not to the extent or justifying an entire bathroom vanity to be replaced.
It is not suggested that it will be repaired before it is eventually replaced at some point in the future.
I do not find that this justifies compensation. I dismiss this claim. Oven replacement
The landlord claimed $1,125.00 for the installation of a new oven.
The oven the tenant was provided with initially had a bent inner upper element, and two stove top elements had been burnt. The upper element was separately replaced but the same thing eventuated. The entire oven ended up being replaced in 2023.
The landlord had provided photos of the old oven before it was replaced showing the bent inner upper oven element and the two elements that seemed to be burnt.
The landlord provided photos of the current oven but with the heating element drip trays removed. There was rust underneath the element drip trays themselves. The oven itself worked without issues.
There was no suggestion that the new oven or the stove top was left with damages.
The landlord applied to the Tribunal seeking for the replacement cost of the first oven.
Taking into account the depreciation rate of 25% and Inland Revenue useful lifespan of 8 years, it is questionable how much the first oven would have been worth when it was replaced.
Furthermore, the tenant denies causing any damage to the inner upper oven element or the two stove top elements from the old oven. I note that the burnt top elements and the bent oven element are all on the same side of the oven. I cannot discount the possibility of the oven being faulty especially with the upper oven element being bent twice the same way.
I do not find that there is enough evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has caused damage to the original oven.
In relation to the new oven, there is no expectation for the tenants to dismantle ovens or the drip trays to check if the oven is clean or without rust inside.
I dismiss the claim for oven replacement. Removal of vegetation
The landlord sought $78.00 for removal of vegetation around the base of the banana tree.
The tenant accepted having left vegetation around the base of the banana tee as it was the most effective way to get good crop of bananas. The tenant believed that that was best to maintain the yard.
The tenant should have discussed this with the landlord. Had that been the case, the parties could have agreed on how it was to be left.
From the photos provided, I find that the base of the banana tree was not left reasonably tidy. I find that the amount sought by the landlord is reasonable.
I order the tenant to pay the landlord $78.00 for vegetation removal from the bond. Filling and painting of holes in walls.
The landlord sought for $200.00 for filling and painting the holes left in walls.
The tenant said that the tenant was a professional plaster and painter and that the holes created by the tenants were filled, sanded and repainted already. The tenant said that the holes shown on the landlord’s photos were of pre-existing holes.
The tenant said that the tenant was told by the landlord that there were no issues with the holes at the end of the tenancy inspection.
The landlord said that the photos provided to the Tribunal were of holes other than the pre-existing ones. The landlord explained that the tenant was given an opportunity to complete the filling and painting of the holes, but the work done was substandard, so the tenant was not given further time to finalise it with another coating of painting.
Having seen the photos provided by the landlord, I accept that the landlord has proven that the holes were not pre-existing and required to be filled and painted.
I find $150.00 to be a reasonable amount to cover the landlord’s costs for filling and painting the holes.
I order the tenant to pay this amount to the landlord from the bond. Reimbursement of the filing fee
As it cannot be said that the landlord has wholly or substantially succeeded with the application, I do not order for any reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360802 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360802 — 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