What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5409490 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 5409490?

Kitchen Cabinetry: $2,136.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5409490?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5409490?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13286159-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5409490 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 5409490?

Kitchen Cabinetry: $2,136.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5409490?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5409490?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13286159-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5409490 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5409490 — net $2,136.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Kitchen cabinetry	$2,136.13	Repairs: Kitchen cabinetry
Net award	$2,136.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,136.13

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation relating to damage to the property. Background

The tenancy commenced in April 2022.

In 2023 the tenants raised several maintenance concerns at the property, including mould in the kitchen.

The landlord engaged a “maintenance partner” to carry out a full mould assessment at the property. The maintenance partner confirmed that mould was present to the right-hand side of the kitchen described as the wet bench (under sink cabinetry).

The tenants requested a full kitchen replacement as they believed there was mould in all cabinetries, however the maintenance partner was unable to locate any mould in the other “dry” cabinetry. The tenants have provided photographs of why they considered there was mould.

The scope of works was approved for the wet bench and cabinetry replacement, but the request for full replacement was rejected on the basis that it was not required.

The tenants disagreed and on 2 October 2023 they issued a 14-day notice to remedy, seeking replacement of the affected cabinetry and to also ensure that the cabinetry allowed a standard fridge to be used in the kitchen.

On 5 October 2023 the maintenance partner advised the landlord that the tenants had commenced removing the dry bench cabinetry prior to them arriving to carry out other works.

The landlord then issued the tenants with a 14-day notice to reinstate the kitchen cabinetry.

That did not occur and the landlord was then required to reinstate and repair that cabinetry and subsequently replace both sections to achieve a functional kitchen. There were ongoing discussions with the tenants throughout this process.

The landlord seeks compensation for the cost attributable to the removal and reinstatement of the dry bench cabinetry.

The tenants accept that they should not have proceeded to remove the dry kitchen cabinetry but say they were frustrated and these actions should be considered in the context of the mould and deterioration of the cabinetry, the landlord’s failures to maintain the property, and their inability to use a standard sized fridge in the kitchen. Issues for determination

The issues that need to be determined are: a. Whether the landlord was in breach of section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by failing to replace the entirety of the kitchen cabinetry. b. Whether the tenants were entitled to carry out the works before the expiry of the 14-day notice. c. Whether the tenants’ removal of the dry cabinetry constitutes intentional damage as defined by s40(2)(a) of the RTA. d. Whether the landlord is entitled to compensation for the cost of replacing the removed cabinetry.

Both parties have provided evidence in support of their claims, and I confirm that I have reviewed and considered this, even if there is no direct reference to it. Maintenance requirements

Section 45 of the RTA requires a landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the length of the tenancy.

The advice received by the landlord and provided, is that only the wet bench cabinetry required replacement to meet the statutory standards.

Although the tenants claim that there was mould problem, on review I consider that there is inadequate evidence to support this proposition.

I am satisfied that the landlord’s decision to only replace one side of the kitchen was reasonable based on the investigations carried out, and advice they received and met the obligations under section 45 of the RTA.

According, I find that the landlord was not in breach of section 45 of the RTA at the time the 14-day notice was issued. Effect of the 14-day notice

A 14-day notice does not entitle a tenant to take unilateral remedial action unless statutory prerequisites are met. In any event, the tenant acted before the notice expired and before the landlord had an opportunity to further consider or complete the work.

Dissatisfaction with a landlord’s response does not justify self-help, particularly where the landlord is acting on advice.

The tenants’ actions were premature and unauthorised. Tenant damage

Section 40(2)(a) of the RTA requires a tenant not to intentionally or carelessly damage the premises.

The deliberate removal of fixed kitchen cabinetry, without consent or lawful authority, constitutes intentional damage. The tenants’ belief that replacement was justified does not convert the conduct into lawful action.

I am satisfied that: a. The cabinetry was not unsafe. b. The tenant made a conscious decision to remove it. c. The removal necessitated reinstatement and costs.

This meets the threshold for intentional damage. Compensation

The landlord seeks recovery of the costs attributable to installing the dry cabinetry that did not require replacement prior to the tenants’ actions.

The Tribunal is required to assess compensation on a compensatory basis only. The purpose of an award is to place the landlord, so far as money can do so, in the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached the RTA. It is not to provide replacement on a new-for-old basis.

The cabinetry removed by the tenants was estimated to have been installed around the 1980’s-1990’s. While I accept that it remained in good working order and could have continued to be used for some time it was nonetheless approaching the latter stage of its expected useful life. Any award must therefore reflect substantial depreciation.

The landlord claims for $5,373.26, being predominantly for the cost of the new dry cabinetry materials and including rubbish removal of $136.13.

There is no precise formula for depreciation. Instead, the Tribunal often makes a broad assessment having regard to age, condition, remaining useful life, and the extent of betterment obtained. In this case, the replacement of decades old cabinetry with new material results in a significant element of betterment.

Taking these factors into account, I consider that it is reasonable reduce the amount of compensation awarded, reflecting that the cabinetry, while serviceable, was near the latter part of its useful life, but still had ongoing value.

The rubbish removal is allowed in full, as it arose directly from the tenant’s actions and is not affected by depreciation.

Compensation is therefore assessed as follows: a. Replacement cabinetry: $2,000.00 b. Rubbish removal $136.13

Total compensation awarded is $2,136.13. Other matters

The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenant did seek name suppression and although I found that the tenants were in breach of the RTA, they were successful to the extent the awarded amount was reduced. The tenants also raised issues relating to family violence and safety risks in publication and I consider that these safety risks outweigh the public interest in publication. Name suppression is granted. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 14 March 2026

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5409490 — net $2,136.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Kitchen cabinetry	$2,136.13	Repairs: Kitchen cabinetry
Net award	$2,136.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,136.13