What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5377815 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 5377815?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $264.50 awarded to landlord; Patch And Paint Walls And Door: $760.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5377815?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5377815?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13039621-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5377815 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 5377815?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $264.50 awarded to landlord; Patch And Paint Walls And Door: $760.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5377815?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5377815?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13039621-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5377815 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5377815 — net $1,152.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$264.50	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: patch and paint walls and door	$760.00	Repairs: patch and paint walls and door
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,152.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,152.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5377815 — net $1,152.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$264.50	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: patch and paint walls and door	$760.00	Repairs: patch and paint walls and door
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,152.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,152.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Trinity Paeu and Ajiah Pepe must pay [The landlord/s] $392.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone numbers for the tenants, the last three digits being 801 and 640 respectively, were each called twice without any response. As the tenant were served, the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for outgoings, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said there was a fixed-term tenancy up to 13 March 2026, that the tenants sought to leave the tenancy early, the request for which was granted by the landlord, and new tenants moved into the property on 24 September 2025.
The landlord said this tenancy then ended the day before the new tenants moved in, being 23 September 2025, despite them having moved out a few days before this.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy began on 5 April 2025 and ended on 23 September 2025. The landlord provided water invoices which went from 5 May 2025 to 1 October 2025, though the landlord’s claim for the last water bill was amended to go back to 23 September 2025. The landlord claimed $110.52 for water bills to the end of the tenancy.
There was no water ledger provided with the application documents. When I asked the landlord whether the tenant had made any payments towards the water bills, the landlord confirmed the tenant had paid $20.27 on 24 June 2025, apparently towards the water bill from April to May 2025. I asked the landlord to email in their water ledger during the hearing. On this water ledger was a charge of $20.27 for water from 1 April 2025 to 5 May 2025, which showed as being paid by the tenant. There were no other water invoices or water payments reflected on this water ledger.
The landlord said that there had been a change of ownership of the property on 11 May 2025 and, due to this, the property managers did not receive any of the water invoices from May 2025 to the end of the tenancy, from the new owner, until 7 November 2025, well after the tenancy had ended. The property manager acknowledged that the tenants would not have been invoiced for any water bills during the rest of their tenancy from May 2025 because of this. The property manager also confirmed that the first the tenants would have become aware of these water bills from May 2025 to the end of the tenancy would have been in this application.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
In the case of Braganza v Saia (DC) CIV-2010-004-2024, in respect to the issue of a landlord’s obligation to render water accounts promptly, the District Court held, at paragraph [15]: “It is plainly incumbent on a landlord to set out with clarity what it is that he claims is due, as and when it falls due, and, when it comes to water, to provide the bills to the tenant as they fall due, so that the tenant may make any challenge to the supplier that he thinks is appropriate and make arrangements for payment in a timely fashion.”
Further, the judge noted that: “If the tenant is to be asked to pay after the event with no opportunity to check the calculation, or to make provision for payment at the time, he is at a manifest disadvantage. It is down to the landlord to provide the detail as it falls due.” [Paragraph 16]
The landlord is under an obligation to provide water bills to tenants regularly and in a timely manner, as outlined by the District Court above. The landlord has acknowledged that these tenants were not aware of any water bills after May 2025 until the landlord filed its application and provided the subsequent water bills that they did not receive from the new owner until 7 November 2025, around 6 months later and after the tenancy had ended. In my view, claiming water bills from the tenants several months after the charges were incurred and after their tenancy has ended, with the tenants not having had a chance to know about each of the water bills on a regular monthly basis, and so have the opportunity to challenge it at or close to the time the charges were incurred, if need be, is neither fair nor just, pursuant to section 85 of the RTA.
Added to this, I find that the landlord, in not provided a water ledger that fully reflects all water invoices received during the tenancy, has provided insufficient additional supporting evidence to prove their claim. Based on this and the substantial merits and justice of the situation, I dismiss this claim.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Weeding
The landlord said the tenant did maintain the gardens well before they left, which required some weeding. The landlord provided two photographs of the side garden at the property, which they said was taken at the Final Inspection, and showed some weeds coming through the paving stones and in the side garden. The landlord claimed $100.00 to have the weeding done in the garden. Based on the photographs, I find this is a reasonable cost for this weeding and so award $100.00 to the landlord for weeding at the end of the tenancy. Lock replacement
The landlord said the tenant was provided with a key for the sliding door in the master bedroom at the start of the tenancy but at the end of the tenancy the tenant returned a key that did not properly fit the sliding door lock in the master bedroom. The landlord said the tenant told them they would check to see if they could locate another key for this but never responded to them about this. As such, the landlord said they had to replace the lock in the sliding door of the master bedroom. The landlord provided an invoice for $264.50 for this. Given the evidence, I find the amount claimed by the landlord to be reasonable and so award the landlord $264.50 to replace the lock on the sliding door in the master bedroom.
The amounts ordered are proved. Compensation for break lease costs
The landlord said the tenant left the tenancy term early and so incurred the landlord’s reasonable costs in the landlord consenting to this. The landlord provided an email they sent to the tenant that outlined the landlord’s rates for background and credit checks, their hourly rate for time spent reviewing new applications and so on.
The landlord claimed $627.30 for costs they said they incurred in consenting to an early lease break as requested by the tenants.
Two days before the hearing, the landlord provided to the Tribunal an itemised account of expenses relating to their break lease costs. This account was headed up as ‘Section 44A’. It was noted by the remote tenancy registry that that landlord was to copy the tenants with this before the hearing.
At the hearing, the property manager, in response to questions, confirmed that the itemised account of expenses, which were the actual expenses billed to the tenant, had not been copied to the tenant at all, either just after the tenancy, nor were the tenants copied with the itemised account of these expenses that had been sent into the Tribunal two days before the hearing. Whilst the tenants had been notified of the landlord’s rates for this situation, the property manager confirmed the tenants were never sent an itemised account of these expenses at any time. This itemised account of expenses provided to the Tribunal was the end account for the expenses actually invoiced by the landlord, as opposed to just the landlord’s rates for this. The property manager said she was not aware the tenant had to be sent the itemised account of these expenses, despite the account being headed ‘Section 44A’.
Section 44A of the RTA provides, (1) A landlord who consents to an assignment under section 43B, to a subletting or parting with possession under section 44, or to termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d) is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the assignment, subletting, parting with possession, or termination. (2) A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant in accordance with subsection (1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant. (3) A landlord who takes any step to recover expenses referred to in subsection (1) without providing an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant— (a) commits an unlawful act; and (b) commits an infringement offence and is liable to a fine or an infringement fee specified in Schedule 1B
The landlord has acknowledged not providing an itemised account of their break lease expenses to the tenant at any time up to and including the hearing date. As such, based on this and the substantial merits and justice of the situation, I find the landlord is not entitled to recover these expenses from the tenant as, in filing this application and claiming these expenses yet not providing an itemised account of these expenses, the landlord has essentially breached section 44A of the RTA. Therefore, I dismiss this claim.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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) 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) 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) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) 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 landlord said following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to walls in the master bedroom and in bedroom 2. The landlord provided a few photographs showing a wall in the master bedroom which had obviously been patched up, apparently by the tenants, and walls in bedroom 2, one which had gouges in it and the other which had scratches and paint chips. The landlord claimed $500.00 to repair (plaster and sand) and repaint these holes and patches and provided an invoice confirming this cost. b. Damage to the door in the master bedroom. The landlord provided a photograph of a patched hole in the master bedroom door and said the tenant had attempted to patch this, but it had to be redone. The landlord claimed $300.00 for patching, sanding and painting the door and provided an invoice confirming this cost. c. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. d. Given the photographs provided, I find the damage by the tenant of the holes in the master bedroom wall and bedroom 2 walls and in the master bedroom door to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As such the tenant is liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. e. I find the $800.00 total cost for plastering, sanding and painting the holes in the walls and door to be reasonable, given the evidence, before considering depreciation. I assess that about half this cost, $400.00, would be attributable to painting rather than plastering or sanding the walls and door. f. In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred. g. The landlord said the house was new before the tenants moved in around April 2025, so the property would have been last painted in early 2025 before they moved in. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. It is only the repair cost attributable to painting that is subject to depreciation. As such, I deduct that $400.00 repair cost I find reasonable to paint the holes in the walls and door, by 10% for depreciation to an award of $360.00 for the painting. I then add this $360.00 for painting to the remaining $400.00 cost for plastering and sanding, to come to a total award of $760.00 to the landlord for plastering, sanding and painting the holes in the walls and door.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has partly succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. As they have been partly successful with the claim, I grant the landlord name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5377815 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5377815 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions