What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5367842?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $977.50 (3364374-010) to Romain

How much money was awarded in case 5367842?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367842?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367842?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13054367-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5367842?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $977.50 (3364374-010) to Romain

How much money was awarded in case 5367842?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367842?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367842?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13054367-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 30B Verbena Road, Birkdale, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5367842 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5367842 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Bond	$977.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$28.00

On 16 October 2025 the tenant filed an application seeking refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

On 7 November 2025 the landlord filed a cross application seeking compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Mr Gabarra appeared for the tenants. Ms Farrimond, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord.

The Tribunal will consider the landlord’s claims and then the tenant’s claims. Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. History of the tenancy

The tenancy commenced on 18 May 2024 with the fixed term ending on 17 May 2025, thereafter the tenancy was periodic.

The tenants terminated the tenancy on 17 August 2025. Landlord’s claim for compensation for wall and ceiling damage

With any claim from a landlord for compensation for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage 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 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L of the Act.

It is for the landlord to establish that any damage is beyond fair wear and tear, which is an exception to tenant liability. See section 49A(2) of the Act. Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.

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) of the Act.

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 Act. 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 Act.

The landlord seeks compensation of $977.50 after paying a contractor to undertake wall and ceiling remediation to repair damage in the entranceway and stairwell following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount of $2,530.00 was provided. The landlord told the Tribunal that as an act of goodwill they will pay for half of the cost of the repairs.

The landlord told the Tribunal the property had been “touched up and repainted” at the cost of $3,600.00 prior to the tenants moving in, and that the entrance and stairwell were in good condition.

No pre-tenancy inspection report or photographs were provided to prove the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord said that no photographs were taken of the area, because it had been recently refurbished and was in good condition.

The landlord provided the Tribunal with photographs of the entrance showing areas that had been patched with filler. No photographs were provided showing the damage to the walls or ceiling.

The tenant agrees that there was minor damage around the staircase and doorway at the end of the tenancy consistent with living in the property for 18 months. The tenant denies causing the amount of damage claimed by the landlord and challenged the assertion they caused any damage to the ceiling. Analysis and decision

The Tribunal was not provided with any photographs or pre-tenancy inspection reports proving the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy.

The Tribunal was not provided with any end of tenancy inspection reports or photographs proving the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy.

The Tribunal was provided with photographs showing patch repairs of the entrance. No evidence of the actual damage was provided.

The invoice for the work provided states the repairs included: “Filled the chips and cracks on the walls in the downstairs hallway and stairwell – applied filler then underseal over the filler to seal then 2 top coats. Did the same with the hallway ceiling & upstairs hallway ceiling. Used enamel paint for the chips and mark on the door trims and doors. Filled all noticeable holes in the garage walls & painted. House wash was done on the walls, balcony, deck & fences, front path & walls also cleaned the garage roof (moss & mould + pollen stains).”

Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal is unable to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The invoice provided does not include enough specific detail about the nature of the chips and cracks to prove the tenant was responsible for the damage. The Tribunal cannot discount that they were caused by normal movement in the property or through general wear and tear.

Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenant caused damaged to the property and the landlord’s claim for compensation, reimbursement of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Tenant’s claims

The tenant seeks refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

For the reasons above the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probability that the tenant was responsible for damage to the property and their claim for compensation was dismissed.

The Tribunal orders the Bond Centre to pay the bond of $977.50 (3364374-010) to Romain GABARRA and Mariela Ferreira immediately. Other matters

Because Romain GABARRA, Mariela Ferreira has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Despite being wholly successful the tenant did not seek name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5367842 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Bond	$977.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$28.00