What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5409429 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 5409429?

Cleaning: $1,503.43 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,860.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5409429?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5409429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13397056-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5409429 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 5409429?

Cleaning: $1,503.43 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,860.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5409429?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5409429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13397056-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5409429 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5409429 — net $5,742.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Wooden flooring repair	$5,860.70	Wooden flooring repair
Painting/cleaning	$1,503.43	Painting/cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,742.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,742.13

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Zak Whitley Thornton must pay [The landlord/s] $5,742.13 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for compensation for an alleged illegal water supply.
The landlord applied for a possession order and compensation for vacated damages. At the hearing, the landlord confirmed that the tenant had vacated the property, and they no longer required an order for possession.
Other matters raised in documentation and the hearing, including healthy homes inspection information and additional vacated damages were not included in the filed application form(s) and are therefore not considered. There is nothing preventing either party from bringing further claims in the Tribunal for these matters. Background
The tenancy commenced on 25 February 2022.
The tenancy agreement noted that: a. The water supply at the property is a farm supply, treated with a 20-micron filter and UV bulb, and tenants use the water at their own risk. b. The tenants share the laundry and garage with the neighbouring cottage.
Disputes arose following a notice to end the tenancy regarding property damage, water supply and alleged shared utility usage. Landlord’s claims – property damage Legal principles
Under sections 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA): a. Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear. b. Liability extends to damage caused by the tenant or anyone they permit on the premises. c. Careless damage occurring after 27 August 2019 may be capped at four weeks’ rent if insurance does not cover it. d. Intentional damage occurs where the tenant knowingly permits damage or acts where damage is certain. (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
Awards are intended to restore the landlord to the position they would have been in if the tenancy had been properly observed, accounting for age, depreciation, and betterment. Evidence
The flooring was original timber flooring, approximately 15 years old and in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy, there were dog scratches in the main living area, water damage near sliding doors, varnish stripping and bulging in the second bedroom. The landlord advised that there was no insurance available for this damage, and they claimed the repair cost of $13,023.75.
They also claimed for painting repairs required as a result of smoke damage. There were three plastic containers of cigarette butts found under the kitchen sink, and the invoice produced states that there was a ceiling wash down required due to smoke damage and excess grease and grime.
The tenant denies that they ever smoked inside the property. The landlord claims intentional smoking.
The landlord claims $15,024.29 and has provided a quote in support of the claim. Findings – landlord’s claims
I consider that it was more likely than not that some damage occurred to the flooring during the tenancy and exceeds wear and tear.
The flooring was not new, and I therefore consider it appropriate to reduce the amount claimed for depreciation. I also consider that at the end of a four-year tenancy some reasonable wear and tear would be expected and reasonable.
Accordingly, I have awarded $5,860.70 towards the remedial floor works.
In respect of the painting works claims, I note that there is no independent inspection confirming the extent of the damage. Smell cannot be identified in the photographs, and I have no third party confirming that painting was required due to a cigarette smell issue. Some wear and tear to the walls would also be expected at the end of a tenancy of this length. Accordingly, I consider it appropriate to award a partial award to cover minimal cleaning and repainting and I award $1,503.43 toward the claimed amount.
I have considered 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 depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Tenant’s claims – water and electricity Legal Principles
Under sections 45(1)(b) and (c) RTA, a landlord must not unreasonably interfere with the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises.
Compensation requires proof of breach by the landlord and actual loss. Discussion
The tenant seeks compensation for costs they incurred due to an alleged illegal water supply. This is based on another of the landlord’s properties sharing a laundry for a portion of the tenancy and being connected to the tenant’s septic pump and UV that is connected to the tenant’s power.
They also seek a rent rebate for three days that they did not have water at the property from 6 October 2025 until 8 October 2025 which the tenants say was caused by the landlord filling a new water tank at another property they owned. The landlord disputes this alleged cause, and says it was likely due to the farmer in charge of supply shutting off the water in heavy rain (and that they did everything they could to resolve the issue as quickly as possible).
The landlord also disputes the other claims, and say these issues were only raised once the landlord sought to end the tenancy. They say the water comes from the local bay supply into a tank which is then treated by a particulate filtration system and UV light, located within the pump shed.
The septic tank services both this property and the neighbouring cottage and is located between the two houses. There is no municipal supply to the area, and all houses in the bay are services by the same supply. They say this arrangement was clearly stated in the tenancy agreement, and that the situation was remedied, and a second laundry was installed with the cottage to remedy the issue when it was raised. The landlord had also paid the tenant $40.00 compensation at the time and provided evidence of the agreement between the parties and evidence of the payment.
The landlord also says that as the landlord of a rural property they paid for a removal service to pump out the septic system when full and supplied filters and UV bulbs as required and that whenever there was an issue with water, they attended to it immediately.
With respect to the rent rebate due to no water, the landlord provided a letter from a plumbing company who confirmed that the lack of water was not caused by any actions of the landlord but by a wider rural water shortage around the area; advising that there is an ongoing issue in [this area] and the local council is in the process of creating a solution with a new treated water system for the bay. Findings
In my review, there is inadequate evidence to show that the tenant suffered quantifiable loss from electricity usage. The shared laundry use was explicit and known to the tenant at the outset, and when issues were raised about an increased power cost during the tenancy, it was resolved by the landlord (or between tenants), reimbursed by the landlord and ultimately the shared laundry situation ceased.
The tenant is now raising these issues at the end of the tenancy and says they have done a calculation of power usage for running the UV ($432.00), the septic pump ($432.00), and the alleged illegal laundry in the pump shed ($350.00). There is no evidence that the parties agreed on any apportionment or reimbursement during the tenancy (save for the reimbursement already processed) and I consider there is insufficient evidence or clarity to confirm that the calculations accurately reflect usage.
The tenant also claims $235.00 linked to a rent abatement for a few days due to a loss of water. Although I have no doubt this situation was frustrating for the tenants, I consider that the evidence shows that the water outage was caused by external factors and not by any landlord breach and that the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
The tenant’s claims for compensation are therefore dismissed. Other matters
The landlord has substantially succeeded with their claims and accordingly I have reimbursed the filing fee to the landlord.
Both parties sought name suppression. As the landlord has been substantially successful with their claims, this is granted to the landlord. I was not advanced any reasons by the tenant that would meet the threshold required by s95A of the RTA, and the tenant’s request for name suppression is declined. R Harvey-Lane 03 April 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5409429 — net $5,742.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Wooden flooring repair	$5,860.70	Wooden flooring repair
Painting/cleaning	$1,503.43	Painting/cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,742.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,742.13

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Zak Whitley Thornton must pay [The landlord/s] $5,742.13 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for compensation for an alleged illegal water supply.
The landlord applied for a possession order and compensation for vacated damages. At the hearing, the landlord confirmed that the tenant had vacated the property, and they no longer required an order for possession.
Other matters raised in documentation and the hearing, including healthy homes inspection information and additional vacated damages were not included in the filed application form(s) and are therefore not considered. There is nothing preventing either party from bringing further claims in the Tribunal for these matters. Background
The tenancy commenced on 25 February 2022.
The tenancy agreement noted that: a. The water supply at the property is a farm supply, treated with a 20-micron filter and UV bulb, and tenants use the water at their own risk. b. The tenants share the laundry and garage with the neighbouring cottage.
Disputes arose following a notice to end the tenancy regarding property damage, water supply and alleged shared utility usage. Landlord’s claims – property damage Legal principles
Under sections 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA): a. Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear. b. Liability extends to damage caused by the tenant or anyone they permit on the premises. c. Careless damage occurring after 27 August 2019 may be capped at four weeks’ rent if insurance does not cover it. d. Intentional damage occurs where the tenant knowingly permits damage or acts where damage is certain. (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
Awards are intended to restore the landlord to the position they would have been in if the tenancy had been properly observed, accounting for age, depreciation, and betterment. Evidence
The flooring was original timber flooring, approximately 15 years old and in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
At the end of the tenancy, there were dog scratches in the main living area, water damage near sliding doors, varnish stripping and bulging in the second bedroom. The landlord advised that there was no insurance available for this damage, and they claimed the repair cost of $13,023.75.
They also claimed for painting repairs required as a result of smoke damage. There were three plastic containers of cigarette butts found under the kitchen sink, and the invoice produced states that there was a ceiling wash down required due to smoke damage and excess grease and grime.
The tenant denies that they ever smoked inside the property. The landlord claims intentional smoking.
The landlord claims $15,024.29 and has provided a quote in support of the claim. Findings – landlord’s claims
I consider that it was more likely than not that some damage occurred to the flooring during the tenancy and exceeds wear and tear.
The flooring was not new, and I therefore consider it appropriate to reduce the amount claimed for depreciation. I also consider that at the end of a four-year tenancy some reasonable wear and tear would be expected and reasonable.
Accordingly, I have awarded $5,860.70 towards the remedial floor works.
In respect of the painting works claims, I note that there is no independent inspection confirming the extent of the damage. Smell cannot be identified in the photographs, and I have no third party confirming that painting was required due to a cigarette smell issue. Some wear and tear to the walls would also be expected at the end of a tenancy of this length. Accordingly, I consider it appropriate to award a partial award to cover minimal cleaning and repainting and I award $1,503.43 toward the claimed amount.
I have considered 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 depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Tenant’s claims – water and electricity Legal Principles
Under sections 45(1)(b) and (c) RTA, a landlord must not unreasonably interfere with the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises.
Compensation requires proof of breach by the landlord and actual loss. Discussion
The tenant seeks compensation for costs they incurred due to an alleged illegal water supply. This is based on another of the landlord’s properties sharing a laundry for a portion of the tenancy and being connected to the tenant’s septic pump and UV that is connected to the tenant’s power.
They also seek a rent rebate for three days that they did not have water at the property from 6 October 2025 until 8 October 2025 which the tenants say was caused by the landlord filling a new water tank at another property they owned. The landlord disputes this alleged cause, and says it was likely due to the farmer in charge of supply shutting off the water in heavy rain (and that they did everything they could to resolve the issue as quickly as possible).
The landlord also disputes the other claims, and say these issues were only raised once the landlord sought to end the tenancy. They say the water comes from the local bay supply into a tank which is then treated by a particulate filtration system and UV light, located within the pump shed.
The septic tank services both this property and the neighbouring cottage and is located between the two houses. There is no municipal supply to the area, and all houses in the bay are services by the same supply. They say this arrangement was clearly stated in the tenancy agreement, and that the situation was remedied, and a second laundry was installed with the cottage to remedy the issue when it was raised. The landlord had also paid the tenant $40.00 compensation at the time and provided evidence of the agreement between the parties and evidence of the payment.
The landlord also says that as the landlord of a rural property they paid for a removal service to pump out the septic system when full and supplied filters and UV bulbs as required and that whenever there was an issue with water, they attended to it immediately.
With respect to the rent rebate due to no water, the landlord provided a letter from a plumbing company who confirmed that the lack of water was not caused by any actions of the landlord but by a wider rural water shortage around the area; advising that there is an ongoing issue in [this area] and the local council is in the process of creating a solution with a new treated water system for the bay. Findings
In my review, there is inadequate evidence to show that the tenant suffered quantifiable loss from electricity usage. The shared laundry use was explicit and known to the tenant at the outset, and when issues were raised about an increased power cost during the tenancy, it was resolved by the landlord (or between tenants), reimbursed by the landlord and ultimately the shared laundry situation ceased.
The tenant is now raising these issues at the end of the tenancy and says they have done a calculation of power usage for running the UV ($432.00), the septic pump ($432.00), and the alleged illegal laundry in the pump shed ($350.00). There is no evidence that the parties agreed on any apportionment or reimbursement during the tenancy (save for the reimbursement already processed) and I consider there is insufficient evidence or clarity to confirm that the calculations accurately reflect usage.
The tenant also claims $235.00 linked to a rent abatement for a few days due to a loss of water. Although I have no doubt this situation was frustrating for the tenants, I consider that the evidence shows that the water outage was caused by external factors and not by any landlord breach and that the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
The tenant’s claims for compensation are therefore dismissed. Other matters
The landlord has substantially succeeded with their claims and accordingly I have reimbursed the filing fee to the landlord.
Both parties sought name suppression. As the landlord has been substantially successful with their claims, this is granted to the landlord. I was not advanced any reasons by the tenant that would meet the threshold required by s95A of the RTA, and the tenant’s request for name suppression is declined. R Harvey-Lane 03 April 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5409429 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5409429 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions