What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5381361 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Ray White Remuera Property

How much money was awarded in case 5381361?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381361?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13100083-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5381361 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Ray White Remuera Property

How much money was awarded in case 5381361?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381361?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381361?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13100083-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

329B West Tamaki Road, Wai O Taiki Bay, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5381361 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5381361 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess - study floor	$750.00	Insurance excess - study floor
Insurance excess - kitchen floor	$750.00	Insurance excess - kitchen floor
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	14. I am satisfied that the photographs of this damage show normal deterioration of a wooden floor situated in an entrance – that is, damage that is fair wear…
Net award	$1,528.00
Bond	$5,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,528.00

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Jin Lin And [The landlord/s] $1,528.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,800.00 immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Jin Lin And [The landlord/s]: $1,528.00 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $4,272.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.

The landlord has applied for 3 insurance excesses relating to damaged floors, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants 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. 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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

The landlord claims 3 insurance excesses of $750.00 each that they paid to their insurance company. These relate to damage to the wooden floor in the kitchen, damage to the wooden floor in the study and damage to the wooden floor in the entrance way.

The premises were brand new when the tenants moved in and so I accept that this damage occurred during this tenancy.

At today’s hearing the tenants did not dispute that they were responsible for paying the excess for the damage done to the kitchen floor. They stated that they had already advised the landlord of their acceptance of this part of the landlord’s claim.

The photos show that the wooden floor in the study was water damaged. The tenants acknowledge that they had a pot plant above where the damage occurred. They say that this damage is fair wear and tear.

Fair wear and tear is not defined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 but is generally regarded as being normal deterioration from reasonable use.

I do not consider the water damage occurred through normal deterioration through reasonable use. It must have been evident that a pot plant, when placed on a wooden floor and watered, would cause significant damage.

I consider this damage to be careless. Carelessness is also not defined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, but its usual meaning is lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The standard of care is the standard of an ordinary careful person.

I am satisfied that this damage occurred though lack of forethought and that the tenants are therefore liable to pay the excess that the landlord has paid to their insurance company for this damage to be repaired.

I am dismissing the claim for the excess paid to the insurance company because of damage to the entry way floor.

I am satisfied that the photographs of this damage show normal deterioration of a wooden floor situated in an entrance – that is, damage that is fair wear and tear. Filing fee reimbursement

I am ordering the tenants to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was substantially successful with the claim against them. C ter Haar 10 February 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5381361 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess - study floor	$750.00	Insurance excess - study floor
Insurance excess - kitchen floor	$750.00	Insurance excess - kitchen floor
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	14. I am satisfied that the photographs of this damage show normal deterioration of a wooden floor situated in an entrance – that is, damage that is fair wear…
Net award	$1,528.00
Bond	$5,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,528.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Jin Lin And [The landlord/s] $1,528.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,800.00 immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Jin Lin And [The landlord/s]: $1,528.00 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $4,272.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
The landlord has applied for 3 insurance excesses relating to damaged floors, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants 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. 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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The landlord claims 3 insurance excesses of $750.00 each that they paid to their insurance company. These relate to damage to the wooden floor in the kitchen, damage to the wooden floor in the study and damage to the wooden floor in the entrance way.
The premises were brand new when the tenants moved in and so I accept that this damage occurred during this tenancy.
At today’s hearing the tenants did not dispute that they were responsible for paying the excess for the damage done to the kitchen floor. They stated that they had already advised the landlord of their acceptance of this part of the landlord’s claim.
The photos show that the wooden floor in the study was water damaged. The tenants acknowledge that they had a pot plant above where the damage occurred. They say that this damage is fair wear and tear.
Fair wear and tear is not defined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 but is generally regarded as being normal deterioration from reasonable use.
I do not consider the water damage occurred through normal deterioration through reasonable use. It must have been evident that a pot plant, when placed on a wooden floor and watered, would cause significant damage.
I consider this damage to be careless. Carelessness is also not defined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, but its usual meaning is lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The standard of care is the standard of an ordinary careful person.
I am satisfied that this damage occurred though lack of forethought and that the tenants are therefore liable to pay the excess that the landlord has paid to their insurance company for this damage to be repaired.
I am dismissing the claim for the excess paid to the insurance company because of damage to the entry way floor.
I am satisfied that the photographs of this damage show normal deterioration of a wooden floor situated in an entrance – that is, damage that is fair wear and tear. Filing fee reimbursement
I am ordering the tenants to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was substantially successful with the claim against them. C ter Haar 10 February 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5381361 — Property damage at 329B West Tamaki Road, Wai O Taiki Bay, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5381361 — Property damage at 329B West Tamaki Road, Wai O Taiki Bay, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions