What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5405288?

The tribunal order states: Felmar Dalogdog Latayada, Janice Villar Latayada and Romeo Jr Pascua

How much money was awarded in case 5405288?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Downpipe: $155.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405288?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13360511-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5405288?

The tribunal order states: Felmar Dalogdog Latayada, Janice Villar Latayada and Romeo Jr Pascua

How much money was awarded in case 5405288?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Downpipe: $155.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405288?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13360511-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Electra Place, Wigram, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5405288 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5405288 — net $933.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Downpipe	$155.00	Repairs: Downpipe
Carpet replacement - insurance excess	$750.00	Carpet replacement - insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$933.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$933.00

Order

Felmar Dalogdog Latayada, Janice Villar Latayada and Romeo Jr Pascua Granadozin to pay Rempstone Property Management Limited On Behalf Of Leon Tan $933.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $933.00 (3421964-011) to Rempstone Property Management Limited On Behalf Of Leon Tan immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,867.00 (3421964-011) to Felmar Dalogdog Latayada, Janice Villar Latayada and Romeo Jr Pascua Granadozin immediately.

Reasons

Introduction

This is a landlord’s application for compensation arising from damage to the carpet during the tenancy, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing took place on 27 March 2026 via video conference.
The landlord was represented by Ms Sun. The tenants, Mrs Latayada and Mr Granadozin, were represented by Mr Latayada, one of the tenants, who attended by teleconference. All tenants were present and confirmed that Mr Latayada would speak on their behalf.

Background?

The tenancy was originally a fixed-term tenancy due to end in late November 2025. The tenants requested an early termination, and a lease break arrangement was agreed. Under that arrangement, the tenancy was to end when a replacement tenancy commenced, which was 3 October 2025. Accordingly, the tenants remained responsible for the premises until 2 October 2025.
The tenants vacated the premises earlier and returned the keys on 29 September 2025. An outgoing inspection was carried out on 30 September 2025. During that inspection, significant water damage was discovered. The dishwasher had been pulled out from its position, and the downpipe connection had been disturbed, resulting in an active water leak. Ms Sun’s Submissions
Ms Sun submitted that the damage was clearly identified during the outgoing inspection conducted on 30 September 2025, which was still within the tenancy period.
She stated that upon inspection, the dishwasher had been pulled out and there were obvious signs of water damage throughout parts of the property, including the kitchen, living areas, and a bedroom. The inspection manager, Ms Yuan, observed that water was still leaking at the time due to a disconnected or damaged pipe beneath the sink.
Ms Sun submitted that while the landlord could not definitively state whether the damage was caused intentionally or carelessly, the physical evidence indicated that the dishwasher had been forcibly moved, which caused the pipe to disconnect and water to escape.
She further submitted that: a. the damage occurred during the tenancy; b. the tenants remained legally responsible for the premises until 2 October 2025 under the lease break arrangement; and c. the condition of the property at inspection reflected damage that arose within that period.
In relation to quantum, Ms Sun submitted that the landlord acted reasonably to mitigate loss by arranging prompt drying services and engaging contractors. She explained that drying is a standard and necessary first step in water damage situations, even where replacement may ultimately be required.
She also submitted that the landlord had not claimed for other issues identified at the end of the tenancy, including general wear, stains, and minor damage noted in the inspection report. She said those costs were effectively absorbed by the landlord and should be considered as balancing factors when assessing compensation. Mr Latayada’s submissions
Mr Latayada, on behalf of the tenants, submitted that when they vacated the premises, the property was in good condition, clean, and without any water damage. He stated that they had recorded a video showing the condition of the property at the time they left.
He denied that the tenants had pulled out the dishwasher or caused any damage to the pipe. He maintained that the tenants had no knowledge of how the damage occurred.
Mr Latayada suggested that the damage may have occurred after they vacated the premises. He raised concerns that the property may not have been secure, referring to information later provided to him that a sliding door or gate may have been left open. He submitted that it was possible that someone else entered the property and caused the damage.
He also expressed confusion regarding the tenancy end date. He stated that the tenants believed their obligations had effectively ended when they vacated and returned the keys.
In relation to quantum, Mr Latayada accepted that some costs might be payable, including the plumbing repair and drying costs. However, he opposed liability for the insurance excess, stating that it was too high and that the carpet was already old and worn.

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. Analysis
I have considered the submissions of both parties carefully.
The tenants’ primary position is that they did not cause the damage and that the property was left in good condition. They also suggest the possibility of third- party involvement after they vacated.
However, there is no direct evidence supporting that suggestion. While concerns were raised about security, these remain speculative. There is no evidence before me establishing that an unknown person entered the premises and caused the damage. Even if there were, the tenants would be liable for the damage because they were responsible for the tenancy.
On the other hand, the landlord’s evidence establishes that the damage was discovered during a properly notified inspection within the tenancy period, and that the nature of the damage involved physical displacement of the dishwasher and disconnection of plumbing.
The lease break arrangement is also significant. The tenants’ obligations did not end when they vacated the premises. Their legal responsibility continued until the agreed end date of 2 October 2025.
Where damage occurs during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear, the tenant is prima facie responsible unless they can show otherwise. In this case: a. the damage occurred during the tenancy; b. the cause involved a physical act (pulling out the dishwasher) rather than gradual deterioration; and c. the tenants have not provided evidence to establish an alternative cause for which they are not responsible.
Although I accept that the tenants may not know how the damage occurred, that uncertainty does not displace liability.
I find on the balance of probabilities that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that the tenants are responsible for it.
The amounts ordered are proved. Betterment and Depreciation
I have taken into account the principles of betterment and depreciation. The purpose of an award of compensation is to return the landlord to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations. The landlord should be neither better nor worse off as a result of the damage.
In assessing this, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy, together with their likely useful lifespan. The property was built in approximately 2001, and the evidence indicates that the carpet had not been replaced for a considerable period of time, including throughout the period of management since 2021. The photographs support that the carpet was already aged and showed signs of wear consistent with long-term use.
While the water damage necessitated remedial work and contributed to the need for replacement, I am not satisfied that the entirety of the loss can be attributed solely to this incident. In particular, it is unclear how long the water had been leaking and to what extent the condition of the carpet, including any mould, was influenced by its pre-existing age and condition.
I note that the cost of replacing the carpet (one bedroom, one dining area, and one living area) is $3,050 GST inclusive. The property’s presentation has no doubt improved significantly.
In those circumstances, an adjustment must be made to reflect depreciation and to avoid betterment.
In relation to the cost of drying the carpet, I accept that this was a reasonable mitigation step. However, I also take into account that the drying process would have involved power usage and that the landlord ultimately obtains some benefit from subsequent replacement.
Doing the best I can on the available evidence, I reduce the claim for carpet drying to nil. This reduction reflects an allowance for depreciation, betterment, and associated power usage. Conclusion
I find that the landlord has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that the tenants are responsible.
However, the amount recoverable must be adjusted to reflect depreciation and to avoid betterment. Filing fee
Because Rempstone Property Management Limited On Behalf Of Leon Tan has substantially succeeded with the application, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5405288 — net $933.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Downpipe	$155.00	Repairs: Downpipe
Carpet replacement - insurance excess	$750.00	Carpet replacement - insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$933.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$933.00

Order

Felmar Dalogdog Latayada, Janice Villar Latayada and Romeo Jr Pascua Granadozin to pay Rempstone Property Management Limited On Behalf Of Leon Tan $933.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $933.00 (3421964-011) to Rempstone Property Management Limited On Behalf Of Leon Tan immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,867.00 (3421964-011) to Felmar Dalogdog Latayada, Janice Villar Latayada and Romeo Jr Pascua Granadozin immediately.

Reasons

Introduction

This is a landlord’s application for compensation arising from damage to the carpet during the tenancy, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing took place on 27 March 2026 via video conference.
The landlord was represented by Ms Sun. The tenants, Mrs Latayada and Mr Granadozin, were represented by Mr Latayada, one of the tenants, who attended by teleconference. All tenants were present and confirmed that Mr Latayada would speak on their behalf.

Background?

The tenancy was originally a fixed-term tenancy due to end in late November 2025. The tenants requested an early termination, and a lease break arrangement was agreed. Under that arrangement, the tenancy was to end when a replacement tenancy commenced, which was 3 October 2025. Accordingly, the tenants remained responsible for the premises until 2 October 2025.
The tenants vacated the premises earlier and returned the keys on 29 September 2025. An outgoing inspection was carried out on 30 September 2025. During that inspection, significant water damage was discovered. The dishwasher had been pulled out from its position, and the downpipe connection had been disturbed, resulting in an active water leak. Ms Sun’s Submissions
Ms Sun submitted that the damage was clearly identified during the outgoing inspection conducted on 30 September 2025, which was still within the tenancy period.
She stated that upon inspection, the dishwasher had been pulled out and there were obvious signs of water damage throughout parts of the property, including the kitchen, living areas, and a bedroom. The inspection manager, Ms Yuan, observed that water was still leaking at the time due to a disconnected or damaged pipe beneath the sink.
Ms Sun submitted that while the landlord could not definitively state whether the damage was caused intentionally or carelessly, the physical evidence indicated that the dishwasher had been forcibly moved, which caused the pipe to disconnect and water to escape.
She further submitted that: a. the damage occurred during the tenancy; b. the tenants remained legally responsible for the premises until 2 October 2025 under the lease break arrangement; and c. the condition of the property at inspection reflected damage that arose within that period.
In relation to quantum, Ms Sun submitted that the landlord acted reasonably to mitigate loss by arranging prompt drying services and engaging contractors. She explained that drying is a standard and necessary first step in water damage situations, even where replacement may ultimately be required.
She also submitted that the landlord had not claimed for other issues identified at the end of the tenancy, including general wear, stains, and minor damage noted in the inspection report. She said those costs were effectively absorbed by the landlord and should be considered as balancing factors when assessing compensation. Mr Latayada’s submissions
Mr Latayada, on behalf of the tenants, submitted that when they vacated the premises, the property was in good condition, clean, and without any water damage. He stated that they had recorded a video showing the condition of the property at the time they left.
He denied that the tenants had pulled out the dishwasher or caused any damage to the pipe. He maintained that the tenants had no knowledge of how the damage occurred.
Mr Latayada suggested that the damage may have occurred after they vacated the premises. He raised concerns that the property may not have been secure, referring to information later provided to him that a sliding door or gate may have been left open. He submitted that it was possible that someone else entered the property and caused the damage.
He also expressed confusion regarding the tenancy end date. He stated that the tenants believed their obligations had effectively ended when they vacated and returned the keys.
In relation to quantum, Mr Latayada accepted that some costs might be payable, including the plumbing repair and drying costs. However, he opposed liability for the insurance excess, stating that it was too high and that the carpet was already old and worn.

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. Analysis
I have considered the submissions of both parties carefully.
The tenants’ primary position is that they did not cause the damage and that the property was left in good condition. They also suggest the possibility of third- party involvement after they vacated.
However, there is no direct evidence supporting that suggestion. While concerns were raised about security, these remain speculative. There is no evidence before me establishing that an unknown person entered the premises and caused the damage. Even if there were, the tenants would be liable for the damage because they were responsible for the tenancy.
On the other hand, the landlord’s evidence establishes that the damage was discovered during a properly notified inspection within the tenancy period, and that the nature of the damage involved physical displacement of the dishwasher and disconnection of plumbing.
The lease break arrangement is also significant. The tenants’ obligations did not end when they vacated the premises. Their legal responsibility continued until the agreed end date of 2 October 2025.
Where damage occurs during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear, the tenant is prima facie responsible unless they can show otherwise. In this case: a. the damage occurred during the tenancy; b. the cause involved a physical act (pulling out the dishwasher) rather than gradual deterioration; and c. the tenants have not provided evidence to establish an alternative cause for which they are not responsible.
Although I accept that the tenants may not know how the damage occurred, that uncertainty does not displace liability.
I find on the balance of probabilities that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that the tenants are responsible for it.
The amounts ordered are proved. Betterment and Depreciation
I have taken into account the principles of betterment and depreciation. The purpose of an award of compensation is to return the landlord to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations. The landlord should be neither better nor worse off as a result of the damage.
In assessing this, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy, together with their likely useful lifespan. The property was built in approximately 2001, and the evidence indicates that the carpet had not been replaced for a considerable period of time, including throughout the period of management since 2021. The photographs support that the carpet was already aged and showed signs of wear consistent with long-term use.
While the water damage necessitated remedial work and contributed to the need for replacement, I am not satisfied that the entirety of the loss can be attributed solely to this incident. In particular, it is unclear how long the water had been leaking and to what extent the condition of the carpet, including any mould, was influenced by its pre-existing age and condition.
I note that the cost of replacing the carpet (one bedroom, one dining area, and one living area) is $3,050 GST inclusive. The property’s presentation has no doubt improved significantly.
In those circumstances, an adjustment must be made to reflect depreciation and to avoid betterment.
In relation to the cost of drying the carpet, I accept that this was a reasonable mitigation step. However, I also take into account that the drying process would have involved power usage and that the landlord ultimately obtains some benefit from subsequent replacement.
Doing the best I can on the available evidence, I reduce the claim for carpet drying to nil. This reduction reflects an allowance for depreciation, betterment, and associated power usage. Conclusion
I find that the landlord has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that the tenants are responsible.
However, the amount recoverable must be adjusted to reflect depreciation and to avoid betterment. Filing fee
Because Rempstone Property Management Limited On Behalf Of Leon Tan has substantially succeeded with the application, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405288 — Property damage at 9 Electra Place, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405288 — Property damage at 9 Electra Place, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Background?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Background?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions