What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5401630 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 5401630?

Rent Arrears: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seats X 2: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $366.19 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5401630?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13729087-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5401630 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 5401630?

Rent Arrears: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seats X 2: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $366.19 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5401630?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13729087-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5401630 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5401630 — net $1,256.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$400.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$366.19	Water rates
Repairs: Stovetop replacement	$250.00	Repairs: Stovetop replacement
Repairs: Toilet seats x 2	$240.00	Repairs: Toilet seats x 2
Net award	$1,256.19
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,256.19

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Opes Property Management North Limited As The Agent For Melanie Simpson & Mike Burrell $1,256.19 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Opes Property Management North Limited As The Agent For Melanie Simpson & Mike Burrell: $1,256.19 [The tenant/s]: $1,543.81

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant sought the return of her bond, less some non-disputed costs. Other claims of the landlord were challenged in her application.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this 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.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 21 October 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy are as ordered.
The tenant accepted $300.00 of the $500.00 as sought as rent owing but believed $100.00 from a day delayed commencement, and another $100.00 as calculated at end date should be deducted. The later $100.00 was considered due to a calculation error and this was explained and accepted. The delayed start of the tenancy of one day was reflected in effectively a claim for $100.00 rebate of rent arrears. Having heard both submissions and considered the limited evidence, I consider it more than likely the key was not made available to the tenant until late on the commencement date due to a landlord failure and $100.00 should be rebated for this. That makes the final rent arrears $400.00, and this is awarded.
The water costs were never disputed by the tenant and this is awarded.

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.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Two toilet seats. Both seats became loose during the tenancy. This was never raised and photos established that they were considerably loose at the end. The landlord advised that movement had worn the fixtures such that they could not be tightened and both seats were replaced at a cost of $120.00 each. The invoice also included travel and labour but also included the repair to the vanity (not awarded). I have therefore awarded on the basis of the replacement cost of the seats only. That balances the contractor being there regardless for the vanity repair, as well as some betterment in the new seats.
Cracked stovetop. The stovetop was replaced after the tenancy due to a crack. There were no ingoing photos from the landlord but the tenant captured the stovetop in the background from a nonrelated photo taken – this was provided. It is not definitive but her contention that there was a pre-existing crack has some support. It was used without any comment by either party during the tenancy. However, later in the tenancy was agreed that one son caused that crack to grow (or a new crack form) after some object contact. At the time the tenant accepted responsibility. The tenant now believed she should have had the opportunity to replace it at her expense. The landlord recalled advising the tenant that the cheaper pathway would be to pay the $250.00 excess. The replacement cost would be $1838.85.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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. In calculating the alternative loss after depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the stovetop at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
I am satisfied the excess of $250.00 is the lesser than any depreciated cost and this is awarded.
The damage above is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have dismissed the landlord claim regarding the vanity repair. There is no evidence to establish the separation from the wall was due to careless or intentional actions of the tenant or others. Filing fee
Each party has had some success so I leave each to carry their respective cost of filing. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant requested suppression in her application. There is no suppression as of right given the orders made but I consider the tenant was justified in challenging a number of the claims. Some tenant liability arose from a failure to notify rather than any specific action. The landlord advised she had given a positive reference after this tenancy and had no objection to possible suppression.
I consider the tenant’s interests in name suppression in this matter, and the nature and anu success of the issues raised outweigh any public interest. The tenant’s name and details are ordered suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5401630 — net $1,256.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$400.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$366.19	Water rates
Repairs: Stovetop replacement	$250.00	Repairs: Stovetop replacement
Repairs: Toilet seats x 2	$240.00	Repairs: Toilet seats x 2
Net award	$1,256.19
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,256.19

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Opes Property Management North Limited As The Agent For Melanie Simpson & Mike Burrell $1,256.19 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Opes Property Management North Limited As The Agent For Melanie Simpson & Mike Burrell: $1,256.19 [The tenant/s]: $1,543.81

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant sought the return of her bond, less some non-disputed costs. Other claims of the landlord were challenged in her application.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this 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.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 21 October 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy are as ordered.
The tenant accepted $300.00 of the $500.00 as sought as rent owing but believed $100.00 from a day delayed commencement, and another $100.00 as calculated at end date should be deducted. The later $100.00 was considered due to a calculation error and this was explained and accepted. The delayed start of the tenancy of one day was reflected in effectively a claim for $100.00 rebate of rent arrears. Having heard both submissions and considered the limited evidence, I consider it more than likely the key was not made available to the tenant until late on the commencement date due to a landlord failure and $100.00 should be rebated for this. That makes the final rent arrears $400.00, and this is awarded.
The water costs were never disputed by the tenant and this is awarded.

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.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Two toilet seats. Both seats became loose during the tenancy. This was never raised and photos established that they were considerably loose at the end. The landlord advised that movement had worn the fixtures such that they could not be tightened and both seats were replaced at a cost of $120.00 each. The invoice also included travel and labour but also included the repair to the vanity (not awarded). I have therefore awarded on the basis of the replacement cost of the seats only. That balances the contractor being there regardless for the vanity repair, as well as some betterment in the new seats.
Cracked stovetop. The stovetop was replaced after the tenancy due to a crack. There were no ingoing photos from the landlord but the tenant captured the stovetop in the background from a nonrelated photo taken – this was provided. It is not definitive but her contention that there was a pre-existing crack has some support. It was used without any comment by either party during the tenancy. However, later in the tenancy was agreed that one son caused that crack to grow (or a new crack form) after some object contact. At the time the tenant accepted responsibility. The tenant now believed she should have had the opportunity to replace it at her expense. The landlord recalled advising the tenant that the cheaper pathway would be to pay the $250.00 excess. The replacement cost would be $1838.85.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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. In calculating the alternative loss after depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the stovetop at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
I am satisfied the excess of $250.00 is the lesser than any depreciated cost and this is awarded.
The damage above is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have dismissed the landlord claim regarding the vanity repair. There is no evidence to establish the separation from the wall was due to careless or intentional actions of the tenant or others. Filing fee
Each party has had some success so I leave each to carry their respective cost of filing. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant requested suppression in her application. There is no suppression as of right given the orders made but I consider the tenant was justified in challenging a number of the claims. Some tenant liability arose from a failure to notify rather than any specific action. The landlord advised she had given a positive reference after this tenancy and had no objection to possible suppression.
I consider the tenant’s interests in name suppression in this matter, and the nature and anu success of the issues raised outweigh any public interest. The tenant’s name and details are ordered suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5401630 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5401630 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions