What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5413153 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 5413153?

Kitchen Cabinets: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5413153?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5413153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13212718-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5413153 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 5413153?

Kitchen Cabinets: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5413153?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5413153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13212718-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

19 Wairau Road, Albert Town, Wanaka 9305 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5413153 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5413153 — net $950.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Kitchen cabinets	$750.00	Repairs: Kitchen cabinets
Repairs: Wall damage	$200.00	Repairs: Wall damage
Net award	$950.00
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$950.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants and occupants name’s and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Melanie Jayne Carter $950.00 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: Melanie Jayne Carter: $950.00 [Tenant]: $1,850.00

The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee
The tenancy commenced on 3 March 2025 and ended on 31 August 2025.
For ease of reference, I will refer to the parties in the singular.
At the hearing the landlord withdrew the claim for landlord’s expenses (break lease fees) and the plumber’s invoice.
The bond is held in the names of [Tenant] (LC), [Occupant] (DR) and [Occupant] (PJB)
The landlord has no tenancy agreement with DR and PJB. She never received rent from them and the bond was not paid by them to her. It was paid by LC. DR and PJB appear to have been occupants of the premises but I raised at the outset of the hearing that I was concerned that they did not have status as tenants of the landlord and had also not been named as respondents to the landlord’s claim despite her claiming the bond. At the hearing I was able to ring DR and PJB and confirm that their view is that they do not have any interest in the bond. I indicated my view is that the landlord has lodged the bond incorrectly in names of DR and PJC and they are not tenants under this tenancy. I gave both parties the opportunity to comment on that and both parties accepted that position.
In addition, all parties agreed at the hearing that [Tenant] is a tenant under this tenancy. He signed the tenancy agreement although he was not specifically named as a tenant. Because all parties have agreed that he was a tenant I will not remove him as a party to the proceedings, however the bond will be refunded to [Tenant] solely. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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 deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. The Law - Tenants responsibility for damage
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 2
Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 3
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 4
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). 5
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). 6 Where 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 3 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 4 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 5 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 6 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 7
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. 8
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. 9
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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 depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The claims
The insurance excess in this case was $750 and rent was $1,200 per week. Kitchen cabinets
The kitchen cabinets were damaged with adhesive child locks during the tenancy.
The landlord claims $1,840 for the full repainting of the kitchen cabinetry. A quote was provided for the full removal, sanding and repaint of the cabinets. The landlord said the cabinets were painted in December 2024/January 2025. Photographs were provided of the damage and pre-tenancy photographs were also provided. The landlord says that the adhesives cannot be removed without damaging the cabinets and they cannot be patch repaired.
The tenant accepted placing adhesive safety catches on the cabinets. They dispute the amount claimed as they do not consider they should be responsible for the full repainting of the cabinetry. They query whether the painting undertaken in December 2024/January 2025 was done professionally.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. 7 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(1) RTA. 9 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I consider the damage to be careless. The landlord has not made an insurance claim, however the limit on careless damage of the insurance excess applies in any event.
Only a quote has been provided. The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when quotes are provided as the actual cost has not been established and the landlord may not actually pay the amounts quoted for the repairs or replacement.
I consider $750 (being the amount of the insurance excess) reasonably compensates the landlord for this breach and this is the amount ordered.
The amount ordered is proved. Stairway wall
The stairwell wall was damaged during the tenancy
The landlord claimed $350 to paint the stairwell post and wall. The landlord said this wall was painted shortly before the tenancy commenced in December 2024/ January 2025.
The tenant accepts they caused the damage but say the amount claimed is excessive. The tenant says the painting in other parts of the premises was poor and provided photographs to show that they were provided a premises that was not well painted.
In taking into account that only a quote has been provided (and my comments above about quotes), that the amount ordered must be reasonable, and betterment and depreciation I consider that $200 reasonably compensates the landlord for this breach and that is the amount ordered.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved. Bond
The bond is to be distributed to the parties in accordance with the amounts set out in the order. Filing Fee
Both parties have been partly successful, therefore I decline to award either the application filing fee. 10 Suppression
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 10 See section 102 of the RTA. in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 11
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 and may attach any conditions to that order that the Tribunal considers appropriate. 12
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has had substantial success in seeking the bond and defending the landlord’s claims, therefore they are entitled to name suppression.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim and I consider the public interest in publication and open justice outweigh her personal interests in name suppression.
The other occupants’ names are suppressed. There is no public interest in their names being published and they helpfully engaged in the hearing process.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5413153 — net $950.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Kitchen cabinets	$750.00	Repairs: Kitchen cabinets
Repairs: Wall damage	$200.00	Repairs: Wall damage
Net award	$950.00
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$950.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants and occupants name’s and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Melanie Jayne Carter $950.00 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: Melanie Jayne Carter: $950.00 [Tenant]: $1,850.00

The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee
The tenancy commenced on 3 March 2025 and ended on 31 August 2025.
For ease of reference, I will refer to the parties in the singular.
At the hearing the landlord withdrew the claim for landlord’s expenses (break lease fees) and the plumber’s invoice.
The bond is held in the names of [Tenant] (LC), [Occupant] (DR) and [Occupant] (PJB)
The landlord has no tenancy agreement with DR and PJB. She never received rent from them and the bond was not paid by them to her. It was paid by LC. DR and PJB appear to have been occupants of the premises but I raised at the outset of the hearing that I was concerned that they did not have status as tenants of the landlord and had also not been named as respondents to the landlord’s claim despite her claiming the bond. At the hearing I was able to ring DR and PJB and confirm that their view is that they do not have any interest in the bond. I indicated my view is that the landlord has lodged the bond incorrectly in names of DR and PJC and they are not tenants under this tenancy. I gave both parties the opportunity to comment on that and both parties accepted that position.
In addition, all parties agreed at the hearing that [Tenant] is a tenant under this tenancy. He signed the tenancy agreement although he was not specifically named as a tenant. Because all parties have agreed that he was a tenant I will not remove him as a party to the proceedings, however the bond will be refunded to [Tenant] solely. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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 deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. The Law - Tenants responsibility for damage
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 2
Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 3
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 4
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). 5
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). 6 Where 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 3 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 4 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 5 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 6 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 7
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. 8
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. 9
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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 depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The claims
The insurance excess in this case was $750 and rent was $1,200 per week. Kitchen cabinets
The kitchen cabinets were damaged with adhesive child locks during the tenancy.
The landlord claims $1,840 for the full repainting of the kitchen cabinetry. A quote was provided for the full removal, sanding and repaint of the cabinets. The landlord said the cabinets were painted in December 2024/January 2025. Photographs were provided of the damage and pre-tenancy photographs were also provided. The landlord says that the adhesives cannot be removed without damaging the cabinets and they cannot be patch repaired.
The tenant accepted placing adhesive safety catches on the cabinets. They dispute the amount claimed as they do not consider they should be responsible for the full repainting of the cabinetry. They query whether the painting undertaken in December 2024/January 2025 was done professionally.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. 7 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(1) RTA. 9 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I consider the damage to be careless. The landlord has not made an insurance claim, however the limit on careless damage of the insurance excess applies in any event.
Only a quote has been provided. The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when quotes are provided as the actual cost has not been established and the landlord may not actually pay the amounts quoted for the repairs or replacement.
I consider $750 (being the amount of the insurance excess) reasonably compensates the landlord for this breach and this is the amount ordered.
The amount ordered is proved. Stairway wall
The stairwell wall was damaged during the tenancy
The landlord claimed $350 to paint the stairwell post and wall. The landlord said this wall was painted shortly before the tenancy commenced in December 2024/ January 2025.
The tenant accepts they caused the damage but say the amount claimed is excessive. The tenant says the painting in other parts of the premises was poor and provided photographs to show that they were provided a premises that was not well painted.
In taking into account that only a quote has been provided (and my comments above about quotes), that the amount ordered must be reasonable, and betterment and depreciation I consider that $200 reasonably compensates the landlord for this breach and that is the amount ordered.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is proved. Bond
The bond is to be distributed to the parties in accordance with the amounts set out in the order. Filing Fee
Both parties have been partly successful, therefore I decline to award either the application filing fee. 10 Suppression
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 10 See section 102 of the RTA. in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 11
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 and may attach any conditions to that order that the Tribunal considers appropriate. 12
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has had substantial success in seeking the bond and defending the landlord’s claims, therefore they are entitled to name suppression.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim and I consider the public interest in publication and open justice outweigh her personal interests in name suppression.
The other occupants’ names are suppressed. There is no public interest in their names being published and they helpfully engaged in the hearing process.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5413153 — Property damage at 19 Wairau Road, Albert Town, Wanaka 9305

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5413153 — Property damage at 19 Wairau Road, Albert Town, Wanaka 9305

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions