What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5382581 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 5382581?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Bench: $1,081.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $678.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5382581?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5382581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13053032-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5382581 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 5382581?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Bench: $1,081.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $678.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5382581?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5382581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13053032-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 321, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5382581 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5382581 — net $267.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: bench	$1,081.00	Repairs: bench
Repairs: painting	$678.50	Repairs: painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$267.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$267.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Pandyalakshmi Senthilkumar and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy must pay [The landlord/s] $267.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by video on 14 January 2026. The landlord was represented by Mr Saliya and the tenants by Ms Senthilkumar.
The tenants applied for a refund of their bond of $1520.00. They agreed that they owe some money for damage to the bench top and to the walls. They did do not agree with the amounts sought by the landlord.
The landlord has cross-applied for compensation: a. Walls $678.50. b. Kitchen benchtop $2,162.
The tenancy ended on 22 November 2025.
The landlord has provided photographs of the damage and the tenants accept that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. round marks on the kitchen bench where hot pots have been placed b. paint lifted on the wall lounge, bedrooms and bathroom.
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 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 damage was discovered in 2024. The tenant agreed to pay for the painting but asked that it be deferred until the tenancy ended. There was a quote in April 2024 for $598.00. At the end of the tenancy in 2025, the same contractor quoted $678.50.
In an email dated 27 May 2024 to the tenants, the property manager said: Thanks for time on the phone today As agreed – the paintwork for the bedroom, bathroom and lounge will be postponed until you vacate the premises. You agree that if the price differs due to the extension of you requesting it to be done in Jan 1 you will cover these costs along with anything else you notice upon leaving. Can you confirm if the mark came out of the benchtop.
The work has now been completed and the painting comes to $678.50. The tenants are unhappy because it is about $80 more than the quote that was given during the tenancy.
The photos show a patches where paint has come away, in the bathroom, bedroom 1, bedroom 2 and the lounge. The tenant explained that the damage occurred because of hair oil. The walls in India are of a different construction. When they realised that they were causing damage, they stopped using the hair oil. I accept that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. It has been caused by the careless actions of the tenant.
The tenant said that the landlord had said they would pay 30% of the cost, and so object to the landlord seeking the full cost.
The landlord explained to the Tribunal that the landlord had agreed to pay 30% of the cost if the full walls were painted, but not if the repairs were only patching.
The landlord provided no evidence of an insurance excess.
I find the cost of $678.50 for patching four walls is reasonable and is less than four weeks’ rent, which would come to $1,880. The amount of $678.50 is ordered.
The tenant thinks that the bench cost is too much. They say that its staining is because of normal use and note that the benchtop is about 5 years old.
The photographs show multiple round brown marks on the bench next to the stove. It appears that on more than one occasion, the tenants have placed a hot pan on the bench. The tenants obtained a quote for cleaning the bench in November 2025. In an email from Benchdoctors, a Mr Saxon said, “A lot of those stains look more like heat marks”. 1 The tenants had enquired about moving to a periodic tenancy and indicated that they were intending to vacate in January.
Placing a hot pan on a bench once might be termed careless. However, it would have become apparent after the first time, that the marks could not be removed by cleaning. The bench was now permanently marked and so the same damage would occur each time a hot pot was placed on the bench. As noted above, 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 find that repeatedly placing a hot pan on a bench such as this is allowing a situation to continue, knowing that damage is certain. This is intentional damage and so the repair cost is not limited to $1880.
The tenant noted that a bench can be bought from Mitre 10 for $353. She explained in later correspondence that she recognised that the would be labour on top of that.
The landlord had undertaken refurbishment shortly before the start of the tenancy. That included refitting the kitchen.
The tenant has now provided a quote that repairs could be done for $882 plus GST. Other quotes were in the $1300 region, but it was unclear if that included labour.
The actual cost incurred by the landlord is now known. It was $1880 plus GST, which is $2162. The landlord is not obliged to find the cheapest possible repair. 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. There is no suggestion that he has upgraded the kitchen by having the damaged benchtop replaced.
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. At the time the benchtop was replaced, the landlord had had the use or benefit of it for five years.
The IRD depreciation rates do not include benchtops in rental properties. The expected lifespans of items such as carpet, ovens and refrigerators is 8 years. For furniture, bedding and heat pumps, it is 10 years.
I am satisfied that if the bench had not been damaged by the tenants, it would not have needed replacement for several more years. I have balanced that against the likely depreciation and have decided that the tenants are responsible for half the cost of the bench repair, which is $,1081.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and there is an order for non-publication of the landlord’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5382581 — net $267.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: bench	$1,081.00	Repairs: bench
Repairs: painting	$678.50	Repairs: painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$267.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$267.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Pandyalakshmi Senthilkumar and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy must pay [The landlord/s] $267.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by video on 14 January 2026. The landlord was represented by Mr Saliya and the tenants by Ms Senthilkumar.
The tenants applied for a refund of their bond of $1520.00. They agreed that they owe some money for damage to the bench top and to the walls. They did do not agree with the amounts sought by the landlord.
The landlord has cross-applied for compensation: a. Walls $678.50. b. Kitchen benchtop $2,162.
The tenancy ended on 22 November 2025.
The landlord has provided photographs of the damage and the tenants accept that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. round marks on the kitchen bench where hot pots have been placed b. paint lifted on the wall lounge, bedrooms and bathroom.
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 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 damage was discovered in 2024. The tenant agreed to pay for the painting but asked that it be deferred until the tenancy ended. There was a quote in April 2024 for $598.00. At the end of the tenancy in 2025, the same contractor quoted $678.50.
In an email dated 27 May 2024 to the tenants, the property manager said: Thanks for time on the phone today As agreed – the paintwork for the bedroom, bathroom and lounge will be postponed until you vacate the premises. You agree that if the price differs due to the extension of you requesting it to be done in Jan 1 you will cover these costs along with anything else you notice upon leaving. Can you confirm if the mark came out of the benchtop.
The work has now been completed and the painting comes to $678.50. The tenants are unhappy because it is about $80 more than the quote that was given during the tenancy.
The photos show a patches where paint has come away, in the bathroom, bedroom 1, bedroom 2 and the lounge. The tenant explained that the damage occurred because of hair oil. The walls in India are of a different construction. When they realised that they were causing damage, they stopped using the hair oil. I accept that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. It has been caused by the careless actions of the tenant.
The tenant said that the landlord had said they would pay 30% of the cost, and so object to the landlord seeking the full cost.
The landlord explained to the Tribunal that the landlord had agreed to pay 30% of the cost if the full walls were painted, but not if the repairs were only patching.
The landlord provided no evidence of an insurance excess.
I find the cost of $678.50 for patching four walls is reasonable and is less than four weeks’ rent, which would come to $1,880. The amount of $678.50 is ordered.
The tenant thinks that the bench cost is too much. They say that its staining is because of normal use and note that the benchtop is about 5 years old.
The photographs show multiple round brown marks on the bench next to the stove. It appears that on more than one occasion, the tenants have placed a hot pan on the bench. The tenants obtained a quote for cleaning the bench in November 2025. In an email from Benchdoctors, a Mr Saxon said, “A lot of those stains look more like heat marks”. 1 The tenants had enquired about moving to a periodic tenancy and indicated that they were intending to vacate in January.
Placing a hot pan on a bench once might be termed careless. However, it would have become apparent after the first time, that the marks could not be removed by cleaning. The bench was now permanently marked and so the same damage would occur each time a hot pot was placed on the bench. As noted above, 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 find that repeatedly placing a hot pan on a bench such as this is allowing a situation to continue, knowing that damage is certain. This is intentional damage and so the repair cost is not limited to $1880.
The tenant noted that a bench can be bought from Mitre 10 for $353. She explained in later correspondence that she recognised that the would be labour on top of that.
The landlord had undertaken refurbishment shortly before the start of the tenancy. That included refitting the kitchen.
The tenant has now provided a quote that repairs could be done for $882 plus GST. Other quotes were in the $1300 region, but it was unclear if that included labour.
The actual cost incurred by the landlord is now known. It was $1880 plus GST, which is $2162. The landlord is not obliged to find the cheapest possible repair. 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. There is no suggestion that he has upgraded the kitchen by having the damaged benchtop replaced.
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. At the time the benchtop was replaced, the landlord had had the use or benefit of it for five years.
The IRD depreciation rates do not include benchtops in rental properties. The expected lifespans of items such as carpet, ovens and refrigerators is 8 years. For furniture, bedding and heat pumps, it is 10 years.
I am satisfied that if the bench had not been damaged by the tenants, it would not have needed replacement for several more years. I have balanced that against the likely depreciation and have decided that the tenants are responsible for half the cost of the bench repair, which is $,1081.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and there is an order for non-publication of the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5382581 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 321, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5382581 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 321, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions