What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5414572 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 5414572?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,084.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5414572?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5414572?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13395852-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5414572 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 5414572?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,084.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5414572?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5414572?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13395852-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5414572 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5414572 — net $1,112.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$1,084.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,112.00
Bond	$1,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,112.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Michelle Greer Real Estate Limited as agent for Iain & Annette Matthew $1,112.00 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Michelle Greer Real Estate Limited as agent for Iain & Annette Matthew: $1,112.00 [The tenant/s]: $328.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 13 January 2025 and ended on 27 October 2025. The Landlord’s Claims
The landlord seeks compensation for the following items: a. Electrician costs said to relate to vermin damage: $658.04, with the landlord claiming half, being $329.02. b. Repairs to kitchen wall linings: $816.89. c. Downpipe repairs: $30.00. d. Exterior grounds clean and remedial work, including water blasting of the porch and steps: $450.00. e. Replacement white picket fence: $4.00. f. Rangehood light bulb replacement: $6.00. g. Rear porch light bulb replacement: $6.00. h. Steel fire surround replacement: $75.00. i. Carpet damage from three burn marks: $50.00. j. Rat bait: $20.00.
The total claimed amount is $1,786.91.
The tenant disputes liability for the majority of these claims. The legal framework
A landlord must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, 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. Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA apply.
Where the damage is careless and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B limits a tenant’s liability depending on whether the damage is insured and whether insurance proceeds are available.
Where damage is intentional, or results from an activity that is an imprisonable offence, tenants remain fully liable. Intentional damage includes circumstances where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541 applies. Evidence and Findings Kitchen wall linings
The landlord says the kitchen wall was damaged during the tenancy and that the tenant attempted repairs, which were inadequate. The landlord is therefore required to engage a professional to rectify the work.
The tenant does not dispute the damage occurred or that the repair work is required but submits that the cost claimed is excessive.
I am satisfied, based on the photographs and contemporaneous records, that the wall damage occurred during the tenancy and required professional repair. The work undertaken went beyond minor cosmetic rectification.
However, some allowance must be made for fair wear and tear and for betterment. The wall linings were not new at the commencement of the tenancy.
I therefore allow this claim in part and reduce the amount awarded to $600.00. Electrical wiring and alleged vermin damage
The landlord claims that a rat damaged electrical wiring within the wall, requiring an electrician. The landlord says this resulted from rubbish stored by the tenant near the exterior of the property.
The tenant denies responsibility and says she experience no rat issues during the tenancy. She submits that the property is rural and adjacent to a petrol station, that vermin could have been present for reasons unrelated to tenant conduct, and that only wood was stored to the exterior of the property.
There is inadequate independent or expert evidence linking the presence of a rat to tenant behaviour.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has met the burden of proof and this claim is dismissed. Light bulbs
The landlord claims for replacement of rangehood lightbulbs and a rear porch light bulb.
Tenants are generally responsible for replacing ordinary, accessible light bulbs as part of day-to-day upkeep. However, light bulbs that form part of fixed appliances fall within the landlord’s maintenance obligations.
A rangehood is a fixed appliance. There is no obligation on a tenant to replace its internal light bulb. This claim is dismissed.
There is no evidence that the rear porch light was not working at the end of the tenancy, nor was this item noted in the final inspection report. This claim is also dismissed. Exterior grounds and cleaning
The final inspection records, supported by photographs, show that the rear porch area and exterior areas around the house were not left reasonably clean and tidy. There was rubbish present, along with stones, bones, and holes in the grounds.
While lawns themselves were in a fair condition, remedial work was required beyond ordinary wear and tear.
I allow the landlord’s claim of $450.00 for exterior cleaning and remedial work. Picket fence
One section of the white picket fence was broken at the end of the tenancy. This was not recorded at the start, and the tenant did not dispute it.
The landlord’s claim is modest and supported by evidence. I allow the $4.00. Downpipes
Broken downpipes were identified in the final inspection.
This damage is more than fair wear and tear. It is likely accidental or careless damage, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
I allow the landlord’s claim of $30.00 for the downpipe repair. Remaining claims
I have dismissed the following claims: a. Rat bait: This is normal landlord maintenance. b. Carpet burns marks: I have insufficient evidence to prove this claim. c. Steel fire surround: I have insufficient evidence to prove this claim. d. Electrician costs: As noted above, these have not been proven. e. Lightbulbs: As noted above, these claims are dismissed. Summary of awards
I allow the following amounts: a. Exterior grounds and cleaning: $450.00 b. Kitchen wall repair (reduced): $600.00 c. Picket fence: $4.00 d. Downpipes: $30.00
The total amount awarded is $1,084.00. Liability and betterment
I find that the damage to the exterior grounds, picket fence, kitchen wall linings, and downpipes occurred during the tenancy, was more than fair wear and tear, and that the tenant has not disproved liability.
In assessing compensation, I have considered depreciation and betterment. The landlord is entitled to be restored to the position they would have been in had the tenant met their obligations, but not to be better off.
The amounts awarded reflect this principle. Other matters
As Michelle Greer Real Estate Limited as agent for Iain & Annette Matthew has been substantially successful, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant sought name suppression, it was not sought by the landlord. As the tenant has successfully reduced the amounts being claimed, I consider that suppression is appropriate in the circumstances. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 02 April 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5414572 — net $1,112.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$1,084.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,112.00
Bond	$1,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,112.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Michelle Greer Real Estate Limited as agent for Iain & Annette Matthew $1,112.00 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Michelle Greer Real Estate Limited as agent for Iain & Annette Matthew: $1,112.00 [The tenant/s]: $328.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 13 January 2025 and ended on 27 October 2025. The Landlord’s Claims
The landlord seeks compensation for the following items: a. Electrician costs said to relate to vermin damage: $658.04, with the landlord claiming half, being $329.02. b. Repairs to kitchen wall linings: $816.89. c. Downpipe repairs: $30.00. d. Exterior grounds clean and remedial work, including water blasting of the porch and steps: $450.00. e. Replacement white picket fence: $4.00. f. Rangehood light bulb replacement: $6.00. g. Rear porch light bulb replacement: $6.00. h. Steel fire surround replacement: $75.00. i. Carpet damage from three burn marks: $50.00. j. Rat bait: $20.00.
The total claimed amount is $1,786.91.
The tenant disputes liability for the majority of these claims. The legal framework
A landlord must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, 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. Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA apply.
Where the damage is careless and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B limits a tenant’s liability depending on whether the damage is insured and whether insurance proceeds are available.
Where damage is intentional, or results from an activity that is an imprisonable offence, tenants remain fully liable. Intentional damage includes circumstances where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541 applies. Evidence and Findings Kitchen wall linings
The landlord says the kitchen wall was damaged during the tenancy and that the tenant attempted repairs, which were inadequate. The landlord is therefore required to engage a professional to rectify the work.
The tenant does not dispute the damage occurred or that the repair work is required but submits that the cost claimed is excessive.
I am satisfied, based on the photographs and contemporaneous records, that the wall damage occurred during the tenancy and required professional repair. The work undertaken went beyond minor cosmetic rectification.
However, some allowance must be made for fair wear and tear and for betterment. The wall linings were not new at the commencement of the tenancy.
I therefore allow this claim in part and reduce the amount awarded to $600.00. Electrical wiring and alleged vermin damage
The landlord claims that a rat damaged electrical wiring within the wall, requiring an electrician. The landlord says this resulted from rubbish stored by the tenant near the exterior of the property.
The tenant denies responsibility and says she experience no rat issues during the tenancy. She submits that the property is rural and adjacent to a petrol station, that vermin could have been present for reasons unrelated to tenant conduct, and that only wood was stored to the exterior of the property.
There is inadequate independent or expert evidence linking the presence of a rat to tenant behaviour.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has met the burden of proof and this claim is dismissed. Light bulbs
The landlord claims for replacement of rangehood lightbulbs and a rear porch light bulb.
Tenants are generally responsible for replacing ordinary, accessible light bulbs as part of day-to-day upkeep. However, light bulbs that form part of fixed appliances fall within the landlord’s maintenance obligations.
A rangehood is a fixed appliance. There is no obligation on a tenant to replace its internal light bulb. This claim is dismissed.
There is no evidence that the rear porch light was not working at the end of the tenancy, nor was this item noted in the final inspection report. This claim is also dismissed. Exterior grounds and cleaning
The final inspection records, supported by photographs, show that the rear porch area and exterior areas around the house were not left reasonably clean and tidy. There was rubbish present, along with stones, bones, and holes in the grounds.
While lawns themselves were in a fair condition, remedial work was required beyond ordinary wear and tear.
I allow the landlord’s claim of $450.00 for exterior cleaning and remedial work. Picket fence
One section of the white picket fence was broken at the end of the tenancy. This was not recorded at the start, and the tenant did not dispute it.
The landlord’s claim is modest and supported by evidence. I allow the $4.00. Downpipes
Broken downpipes were identified in the final inspection.
This damage is more than fair wear and tear. It is likely accidental or careless damage, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
I allow the landlord’s claim of $30.00 for the downpipe repair. Remaining claims
I have dismissed the following claims: a. Rat bait: This is normal landlord maintenance. b. Carpet burns marks: I have insufficient evidence to prove this claim. c. Steel fire surround: I have insufficient evidence to prove this claim. d. Electrician costs: As noted above, these have not been proven. e. Lightbulbs: As noted above, these claims are dismissed. Summary of awards
I allow the following amounts: a. Exterior grounds and cleaning: $450.00 b. Kitchen wall repair (reduced): $600.00 c. Picket fence: $4.00 d. Downpipes: $30.00
The total amount awarded is $1,084.00. Liability and betterment
I find that the damage to the exterior grounds, picket fence, kitchen wall linings, and downpipes occurred during the tenancy, was more than fair wear and tear, and that the tenant has not disproved liability.
In assessing compensation, I have considered depreciation and betterment. The landlord is entitled to be restored to the position they would have been in had the tenant met their obligations, but not to be better off.
The amounts awarded reflect this principle. Other matters
As Michelle Greer Real Estate Limited as agent for Iain & Annette Matthew has been substantially successful, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant sought name suppression, it was not sought by the landlord. As the tenant has successfully reduced the amounts being claimed, I consider that suppression is appropriate in the circumstances. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 02 April 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5414572 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5414572 — 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