What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5400928 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the full bond of $3,080.00 (BN-00071837) to

How much money was awarded in case 5400928?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400928?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13299202-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5400928 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the full bond of $3,080.00 (BN-00071837) to

How much money was awarded in case 5400928?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400928?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13299202-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

35 Hedge Row, Sunnyhills, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5400928 — Cleanliness

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the full bond of $3,080.00 (BN-00071837) to Mingwei Zheng and Na Zhang, immediately.
All other claims in both applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord, Ms Zang, attended the hearing by teleconference. The Mandarin interpreter, Ms Wang, attended the hearing by video conference. As the tenants were served, the hearing initially started without them as they were not present then. However, the tenants, Mr Zhen and Ms Zhang, joined the hearing by video conference about 30 minutes or so after the hearing began, indicating to the Registry that they did not understand they had to join the hearing themselves. When the tenants joined the hearing, the evidence discussed before they joined was summarised for them.
The tenants have applied for compensation and refund of the bond.
The landlord has cross-applied for compensation, refund of the bond and refund of the filing fee.
The tenancy ended on 12 November 2025. Burden of proof and evidence
The party making a claim must prove their claim on the balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred. This is called the burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
Where the parties differ in their evidence about an issue, it is up to each party to provide additional supporting evidence of their position.
Whilst all the evidence provided by both parties has been considered, only the evidence directly relevant to the decision is outlined here. LANDLORD’S CLAIM Compensation

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. Bedroom door
The landlord said the tenants damaged a bedroom door during the tenancy. The landlord claimed $750.00 compensation to replace the bedroom door, which was the insurance excess applicable.
The landlord said there was a final inspection when the tenants left on 12 November 2026 but said it was brief. The landlord said she did not notice any damage in the property during her brief inspection at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said there were not any cleaners or tradespeople that went through the property after the tenancy ended, but the landlord said she was lightly cleaning and dusting the property on 21 November 2025, when she discovered the bedroom door had been forced inwards and was broken.
Ms Zang said she contacted the tenants a few times to ask if they wanted to see the damaged door but did not hear back from them for 3 days. She said she then showed them a photograph of the damaged door in person later.
The landlord indicated that new tenants moved into the property on 22 November 2025. Ms Zang said that, as she had not noticed the bedroom door during the final inspection at the end of the tenancy, she did not mention the damaged bedroom door to the new tenants, to see if they noticed it. She said this was a test to see if the damage was visible to others. The landlord provided a property inspection checklist attached to the new tenancy agreement for the new tenants who moved in on 22 November 2025, which did not reflect any damage to the bedroom door. She said that later the new tenants noticed the damaged door and she told them the damage was pre-existing. Ms Zang said she did not change the property inspection checklist in the new tenants’ tenancy agreement to reflect the damaged bedroom door, either when the new tenants first moved in, or even later when the new tenants noticed the damage.
Ms Zang provided a photograph dated 5 April 2025, the day before the tenancy began, showing the bedroom door without any damage.
Ms Zang also provided 2 photographs both dated 22 November 2025 showing the bedroom door with a dent in the middle of the door. I commented to Ms Zang that the dent in the door appeared very noticeable from the photographs but she said she had to open curtains to allow in more light to take a detailed photograph of it.
The landlord said her insurer had accepted a claim to replace the bedroom door, which she said was required, as the veneer on the door could not be repaired, and provided confirmation from their insurer of the insurance excess of $750.00. The landlord also provided a copy of a quote they had provided to the insurer indicating the replacement cost for the door in the amount of $1,207.50. The landlord said she had paid the insurance excess of $750.00 but had not yet replaced the bedroom door.
The tenant said there was no damage in the property, to the bedroom door or otherwise, at the final inspection when they vacated the property on 12 November 2025. The tenants said if there had been the severe dent in the door showing in the landlord’s photographs of 22 November 2025, on the day they left the tenancy, the landlord would not have signed the bond form. They said the landlord told them 10 days later that the bedroom door was damaged. The tenants said they handed over the keys to the landlord at the final inspection when they moved out and they no longer had possession of the property so could not know what occurred to the bedroom door after they left the property. The tenants denied causing any damage to the bedroom door.
Mr Zheng commented on the landlord’s photographs dated 22 November 2025 showing the dent in the door and said this was very noticeable and severe in the photographs and so the landlord should have noticed damage this visible during their final inspection.
The parties differed in their evidence as to the length of time for the final inspection, with the tenants saying the landlord was there for 1.5 hours and the landlord saying she was only there for about 10 minutes doing the inspection, and then she stood outside with one of the tenants, as she did not feel well, and as they were waiting for the other tenant to print off the bond refund form to get it signed.
The landlord said she felt pressured to sign the bond refund form by the tenants, as they wanted it signed the same day, and she had told them she needed to factor in the final water bills. She said the tenant offered to do the meter calculations the same day so the bond refund form could be signed.
The landlord said that, when she noticed the damaged bedroom door on 21 November 2025, she then contacted the Bond Centre and asked them to put a hold on the bond, saying it was disputed. She said she then tried to resolve matters with the tenants amicably, but they did not respond and then filed their application. The landlord said the bedroom door was about 3 years old.
The tenants said they had wanted the bond refund form signed at the time of the final inspection, as they believed that a previous tenant had had a bond dispute with the landlord.
The tenants left the property on 12 November 2025, at which time the landlord conducted a final inspection, said she did not notice any damage and signed the bond refund form. The tenants returned the keys to the landlord also on 12 November 2025, at which time the landlord regained possession of the property. The landlord said she did not notice any damage to the bedroom door until 21 November 2025, 9 days later. The landlord’s photographs of a dent in the door are dated 22 November 2025, the same day the new tenants moved into the property, and 10 days after these tenants left the property.
The landlord’s evidence was that the new tenants did not notice any damage to the bedroom door, and this was reflected in the property inspection checklist attached to their tenancy agreement, even though the landlord believed at that time that the bedroom door had been damaged. As such, the landlord was not forthright with the new tenants about the damage to the bedroom door, preferring to wait and see whether the new tenants would notice the damage, which she said they did not.
The landlord’s photographs dated 22 November 2025 show a door which has a noticeable and severe dent in the middle of the door. From these photographs, in my view, it would be hard not to notice the severe dent in the middle of the door. If the door were this damaged, I am sure both the landlord and the new tenants would have noticed it, but apparently did not. Also, if the door had been as damaged as is shown in the photographs of 22 November 2025, at the time of the final inspection, 10 days earlier, the landlord would not have signed the bond refund form.
Whilst the landlord said she felt pressured to sign the bond refund form, the landlord could have refused to sign a bond refund form, if she had noticed damage to the property during a final inspection, or if the landlord wished to check closer for any potential damage later.
The landlord was the only person who had possession of the property from the end of the tenancy on 12 November 2025 to the start of the next tenancy on 22 November 2025. The landlord said these tenants left the property clean, so no cleaners were required.
The landlord must prove that any damage alleged was likely caused by the tenants during the tenancy period.
The landlord has not provided additional supporting evidence of damage to the bedroom door as at the time of the tenancy, that is, up to 12 November 2025, or immediately after the tenancy, such as one day later for example, only photographs taken 10 days after the tenancy ended, on 22 November 2025, when the landlord had possession of the property. Further, the damage was such that the landlord’s evidence was that even the new tenants did not notice any such damage, and that no damage was reflected on the new tenants’ property inspection checklist attached to their tenancy agreement, even though the landlord has not yet replaced the damaged bedroom door.
As such, I find the landlord has fallen short of proving that the tenants likely caused the damage to the bedroom door during the tenancy. Given this, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation. TENANTS’ CLAIM Compensation
The tenants claimed compensation of $300.00 for stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s behaviour. They clarified they did not seek any exemplary damages. They said the landlord withholding the bond caused a severe impact on their family, as they have 2 children and needed the bond money to live on. The tenants said they also spent much time preparing their case for the hearing.
The landlord said she invited the tenants to try to resolve the matter amicably before they filed their application, without success. The landlord said that when landlords have disputes about the bond, they are supposed to notify the Bond Centre of such a dispute and ask the bond to be held. The landlord said she followed correct procedure in doing so.
The tenants did not provide any additional supporting evidence for their compensation claim, such as medical evidence or counselling evidence showing the stress and impact on the tenants of this dispute, for example, nor did they provide any financial evidence of the impact on their finances of not receiving the bond right away. As such, I find the tenants have provided insufficient additional supporting evidence of their claim and so dismiss their compensation claim. Refund of the bond and filing fee
As the landlord has not been successful with her compensation claim, the bond is to be refunded in full to the tenants. Similarly, as the landlord has not been successful with her claim, I do not reimburse the filing fee to the landlord. The tenant did not claim for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the full bond of $3,080.00 (BN-00071837) to Mingwei Zheng and Na Zhang, immediately. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. The tenants did not request name suppression. The landlord has not been successful with her claim, nor did she provide any evidence as to why her interests outweigh the public interest in publishing her name. Therefore, I decline to grant name suppression to the landlord. See sections 95A(1) and 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400928 — Cleanliness at 35 Hedge Row, Sunnyhills, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400928 — Cleanliness at 35 Hedge Row, Sunnyhills, Auckland 2010

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

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