How much money was awarded in case 5391071?

Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Refund: $50.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391071?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13153340-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5391071?

Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Refund: $50.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391071?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13153340-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2A Roberts Road, Hei Hei, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5391071 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5391071 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5391071 — net $565.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repair damage to laundry door frame	$115.00		Repair damage to laundry door frame
Paint repairs	$500.00		Paint repairs
Rent refund		$50.00	Rent refund
Total award	$615.00	$50.00
Net award	$565.00
Bond	$2,060.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$565.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay A1 Property Managers Limited Lisa $565.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,060.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: A1 Property Managers Limited Lisa: $565.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,495.00

Reasons

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

The tenants have applied for payment of the bond, reimbursement of overpaid rent and reimbursement of the filing fee

The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The Tenants’ Claim Overpaid Rent

At today’s hearing the landlord accepted that $50.00 had been overpaid in rent. The Landlord’s Claims

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. 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.

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.

I will address each of the landlord’s claims under this heading. Replacement cooktop

I accept that this was a brand new cooktop at the start of the tenancy. However I do not accept the landlord’s evidence that this was more than fair wear and tear.

I say this because I accept that glass cooktops are particularly vulnerable to chipping, given that they have a raised edge. If a lid was dropped, as the tenant stated, I accept that the result could have been a chip on the edge of the stovetop.

I do not consider that a dropped lid is careless. It is part and parcel of everyday cooking life.

I am therefore dismissing this part of the landlord’s claim. Replacement vinyl flooring

The landlord claims $1,800.00 which is the insurance excess the landlord would have to pay if the vinyl was replaced.

The landlord showed photographs which show nicks in the vinyl flooring.

I do not accept the tenants’ explanation that these were caused by cleaning with a sponge. That could not possibly be so.

However, I do accept that this is a high traffic area, and given the nature of the flooring, nicks may be considered to be fair wear and tear.

I am therefore also dismissing this part of the landlord’s claim. Damage to the laundry door frame

The photographs show that the door frame has been water damaged.

The tenant states that she has no memory of how this happened but thinks it may have been caused by flooding when she cleaned the washing machine filter.

I accept that this damage was caused by carelessness. It is certainly not fair wear and tear.

The tenants are therefore required to pay the claimed cost of repairing this damage - $115.00 Damage to walls

The landlord showed several photographs of damage to the walls that they say were caused either carelessly or intentionally.

Having considered the photographs, I consider that most of the photographs show damage caused by fair wear and tear during a three year tenancy.

However, there is some damage that is intentional. This is where the tenants have attempted repairs to some walls, leaving an unsightly looking wall. The repairs have not been done to a reasonable standard.

The landlord has provided a quote for $1,851.50 for repainting. I have estimated the cost of repairing the intentional damage as being $500.00. Filing fee reimbursements

Given that both parties have made a claim against the other and neither has been completely successful, I consider it appropriate that they each bear their own cost of filing their claim. Suppression of names

Pursuant to s95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 I am allowing the tenants’ application that their name and identifying details be suppressed because they have been substantially successful in their defence to the landlord’s claim. C ter Haar 19 February 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5391071 — net $565.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repair damage to laundry door frame	$115.00		Repair damage to laundry door frame
Paint repairs	$500.00		Paint repairs
Rent refund		$50.00	Rent refund
Total award	$615.00	$50.00
Net award	$565.00
Bond	$2,060.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$565.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay A1 Property Managers Limited Lisa $565.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,060.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: A1 Property Managers Limited Lisa: $565.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,495.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
The tenants have applied for payment of the bond, reimbursement of overpaid rent and reimbursement of the filing fee
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The Tenants’ Claim Overpaid Rent
At today’s hearing the landlord accepted that $50.00 had been overpaid in rent. The Landlord’s Claims

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. 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.
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.
I will address each of the landlord’s claims under this heading. Replacement cooktop
I accept that this was a brand new cooktop at the start of the tenancy. However I do not accept the landlord’s evidence that this was more than fair wear and tear.
I say this because I accept that glass cooktops are particularly vulnerable to chipping, given that they have a raised edge. If a lid was dropped, as the tenant stated, I accept that the result could have been a chip on the edge of the stovetop.
I do not consider that a dropped lid is careless. It is part and parcel of everyday cooking life.
I am therefore dismissing this part of the landlord’s claim. Replacement vinyl flooring
The landlord claims $1,800.00 which is the insurance excess the landlord would have to pay if the vinyl was replaced.
The landlord showed photographs which show nicks in the vinyl flooring.
I do not accept the tenants’ explanation that these were caused by cleaning with a sponge. That could not possibly be so.
However, I do accept that this is a high traffic area, and given the nature of the flooring, nicks may be considered to be fair wear and tear.
I am therefore also dismissing this part of the landlord’s claim. Damage to the laundry door frame
The photographs show that the door frame has been water damaged.
The tenant states that she has no memory of how this happened but thinks it may have been caused by flooding when she cleaned the washing machine filter.
I accept that this damage was caused by carelessness. It is certainly not fair wear and tear.
The tenants are therefore required to pay the claimed cost of repairing this damage - $115.00 Damage to walls
The landlord showed several photographs of damage to the walls that they say were caused either carelessly or intentionally.
Having considered the photographs, I consider that most of the photographs show damage caused by fair wear and tear during a three year tenancy.
However, there is some damage that is intentional. This is where the tenants have attempted repairs to some walls, leaving an unsightly looking wall. The repairs have not been done to a reasonable standard.
The landlord has provided a quote for $1,851.50 for repainting. I have estimated the cost of repairing the intentional damage as being $500.00. Filing fee reimbursements
Given that both parties have made a claim against the other and neither has been completely successful, I consider it appropriate that they each bear their own cost of filing their claim. Suppression of names
Pursuant to s95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 I am allowing the tenants’ application that their name and identifying details be suppressed because they have been substantially successful in their defence to the landlord’s claim. C ter Haar 19 February 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391071 — Property damage at 2A Roberts Road, Hei Hei, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391071 — Property damage at 2A Roberts Road, Hei Hei, Christchurch 8042

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions