What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5370225 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 5370225?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370225?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370225?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13088518-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5370225 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 5370225?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370225?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370225?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13088518-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5370225 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s names and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord represented by Ms Currie, and the tenants by [The tenant’s representative]. An interpreter also assisted with the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage caused to the kitchen bench, during the tenancy, which is ongoing.
The tenancy began on 12 January 2025 and the tenants have been described as excellent tenants. The routine inspection reports use words such as “immaculate”, “spotless” and “houseproud”.
However, during a routine inspection on 20 August 2025, the tenants drew the property manager’s attention to the fact that they had placed a hot pot directly on the bench which left a round burn mark. She then noticed that there were circular marks on the breakfast bar.
The property manager has made enquiries about cleaning or repairs but that is not possible. The owner intends to replace the bench. A quote has been obtained for $7,406 for replacement of the bench. The landlord seeks from the tenants the insurance excess of $1,000. This amount has been correctly recorded on the tenancy agreement.
The tenants do not agree that they should pay $1,000.
The onus is on the landlord to establish the claim. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 RTA.
The tenants accept that as a result of putting a hot pot on the kitchen bench, there is a large ring on the bench beside the stove.
The tenants are not sure about the marks on the breakfast bar. They had not noticed them. They suggest either: a. they have been there all along; or b. they are the result of fair wear and tear, from putting hot items on the bench.
The tenants say that they would expect to be able to put a hot pot on a stone bench. That is how they are used to using a kitchen bench in their culture.
They also say that there was already some discolouration of the bench. They produced photographs taken after the damage beside the stove was caused.
The property manager advised that the bench is not stone; it is engineered stone.
At the start of the tenancy, Ms Currie had not emphasised to the tenants, for whom English is not a first language, that hot items straight out of the oven could not be placed on the bench. Ms Currie says that it is common sense that the tenants should not put hot pots on the bench. Whenever using hot plates or serving hot meals, a mat or tea towel should be put down.
Looking at the photographs, the benchtop appears to be a good quality, polished benchtop. It may have been apparent to many people, but not everyone, that it would not withstand very hot items, straight off a hob or out of the oven. Even if most people would not have put a hot dish on the bench, anyone can mistakenly or absent-mindedly put a hot dish down and I consider the damage caused beside the hob was careless, but not intentional.
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.
I accept that the tenants had not noticed that there were also some less demarcated circles on the breakfast bar, but I also find it more likely than not that these were caused by the tenant’s actions. It can be inferred that the items placed on this bench were not as hot as the one on the bench by the hob, and they had not realised it was causing damage.
I find that all the damage falls into the category of carelessness. It is more than fair wear and tear.
However, I have declined to order compensation for two reasons.
First, the bench has not been replaced and the landlord has not yet incurred a cost. Therefore, the application is premature. Although the landlord intends to move back into the property, and replace the bench, she could change her mind. It is not reasonable to order tenants to pay the landlord for a cost not incurred or may not incur.
Second, even if the bench had been replaced, I must 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The Inland Revenue Department depreciation rates do not include benchtops in rental properties. For commercial kitchens the expected lifespan is 20 years old. The expected lifespan of other items in rental properties such as carpet, ovens and refrigerators is 8 years. For furniture, bedding and heat pumps, it is 10 years.
The benchtop is 25 years old. The landlord has had the use or benefit of it for that time.
It is not reasonable that the tenants pay $1,000 for the landlord to have a brand- new benchtop, replacing one that was 25 years old.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
Because the tenants have been successful, they are granted name suppression.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord represented by Ms Currie, and the tenants by [The tenant’s representative]. An interpreter also assisted with the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation for damage caused to the kitchen bench, during the tenancy, which is ongoing.

The tenancy began on 12 January 2025 and the tenants have been described as excellent tenants. The routine inspection reports use words such as “immaculate”, “spotless” and “houseproud”.

However, during a routine inspection on 20 August 2025, the tenants drew the property manager’s attention to the fact that they had placed a hot pot directly on the bench which left a round burn mark. She then noticed that there were circular marks on the breakfast bar.

The property manager has made enquiries about cleaning or repairs but that is not possible. The owner intends to replace the bench. A quote has been obtained for $7,406 for replacement of the bench. The landlord seeks from the tenants the insurance excess of $1,000. This amount has been correctly recorded on the tenancy agreement.

The tenants do not agree that they should pay $1,000.

The onus is on the landlord to establish the claim. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 RTA.

The tenants accept that as a result of putting a hot pot on the kitchen bench, there is a large ring on the bench beside the stove.

The tenants are not sure about the marks on the breakfast bar. They had not noticed them. They suggest either: a. they have been there all along; or b. they are the result of fair wear and tear, from putting hot items on the bench.

The tenants say that they would expect to be able to put a hot pot on a stone bench. That is how they are used to using a kitchen bench in their culture.

They also say that there was already some discolouration of the bench. They produced photographs taken after the damage beside the stove was caused.

The property manager advised that the bench is not stone; it is engineered stone.

At the start of the tenancy, Ms Currie had not emphasised to the tenants, for whom English is not a first language, that hot items straight out of the oven could not be placed on the bench. Ms Currie says that it is common sense that the tenants should not put hot pots on the bench. Whenever using hot plates or serving hot meals, a mat or tea towel should be put down.

Looking at the photographs, the benchtop appears to be a good quality, polished benchtop. It may have been apparent to many people, but not everyone, that it would not withstand very hot items, straight off a hob or out of the oven. Even if most people would not have put a hot dish on the bench, anyone can mistakenly or absent-mindedly put a hot dish down and I consider the damage caused beside the hob was careless, but not intentional.

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.

I accept that the tenants had not noticed that there were also some less demarcated circles on the breakfast bar, but I also find it more likely than not that these were caused by the tenant’s actions. It can be inferred that the items placed on this bench were not as hot as the one on the bench by the hob, and they had not realised it was causing damage.

I find that all the damage falls into the category of carelessness. It is more than fair wear and tear.

However, I have declined to order compensation for two reasons.

First, the bench has not been replaced and the landlord has not yet incurred a cost. Therefore, the application is premature. Although the landlord intends to move back into the property, and replace the bench, she could change her mind. It is not reasonable to order tenants to pay the landlord for a cost not incurred or may not incur.

Second, even if the bench had been replaced, I must 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The Inland Revenue Department depreciation rates do not include benchtops in rental properties. For commercial kitchens the expected lifespan is 20 years old. The expected lifespan of other items in rental properties such as carpet, ovens and refrigerators is 8 years. For furniture, bedding and heat pumps, it is 10 years.

The benchtop is 25 years old. The landlord has had the use or benefit of it for that time.

It is not reasonable that the tenants pay $1,000 for the landlord to have a brand- new benchtop, replacing one that was 25 years old.

The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Because the tenants have been successful, they are granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370225 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370225 — Cleanliness

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