What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5414829 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 5414829?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5414829?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5414829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13194552-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5414829 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 5414829?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5414829?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5414829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13194552-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5414829 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5414829 — net $5,928.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for damage - 10 x	$5,000.00	Insurance excess for damage - 10 x
Window repairs 2 x garage	$400.00	Window repairs 2 x garage
Replacement garage door less depreciation	$500.00	Replacement garage door less depreciation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,928.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,928.00

The landlord 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 bond was refunded to Rentcare Property Management Ltd in a previous order dated 3 July 2025 under application number 5273087.

The claim for the rubbish removal was withdrawn at the hearing.

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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

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. See section 49B(3)(a) 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.

The landlord filed an insurance claim after the end of the tenancy because of the damage. The insurer arranged for a test for methamphetamine and the levels were high in most of the rooms. The insurer remediated the contamination and fixed most of the damage. The insurance excess was $500 for each claim. Some of the repairs were less than the excess. The landlord has not claimed for any of the methamphetamine related damage or remediation, which is helpful because there was no testing done before the tenancy started.

The landlord has proved the insurer repaired at least 10 lots of damage less $5000 in excesses. The landlord has proved the damage happened during the tenancy. I can see from the photos the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. It seems most likely to me the damage was intentional.

The landlord has proved the tenant broke two windows in the garage and I have been provided with invoices. Given the amount of damage it seems most likely to me this was intentional damage. I find the tenant should pay $400 for the repairs.

There is a claim for replacement curtains. The curtains were replaced because of the methamphetamine readings. The landlord said there was also paint on the curtains but the photos taken at the end of the tenancy do not support the claim for replacement curtains because of paint damage. This means I have to consider whether I should allow replacement curtains because of the methamphetamine contamination. The landlord cannot prove the tenant used methamphetamine during her tenancy because there was no testing before the tenancy started. I find the landlord cannot prove it was the tenant who damaged the curtains, and this claim is dismissed.

The claims for repairs to the walls in bedroom 3 and to the rangehood are dismissed because the landlord did not have any evidence the work has been completed.

There is a claim for replacing the garage door. I accept this was damaged during the tenancy and had to be replaced. I have been provided with an invoice. The landlord said the insurer covered some of the cost and the landlord is claiming the balance she had to pay, $1966. With claims like this I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position she would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations and should not be better or worse off. The brand new garage door looks to be a significant improvement from what was there at the start of the tenancy. I find $500 to be a fair amount for the tenant to pay. Other orders

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenant’s name will be published because there is public interest when tenants owe money at the end of a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5414829 — net $5,928.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for damage - 10 x	$5,000.00	Insurance excess for damage - 10 x
Window repairs 2 x garage	$400.00	Window repairs 2 x garage
Replacement garage door less depreciation	$500.00	Replacement garage door less depreciation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,928.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,928.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Kayla Jane North must pay [The landlord/s] $5,928.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord 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 bond was refunded to Rentcare Property Management Ltd in a previous order dated 3 July 2025 under application number 5273087.
The claim for the rubbish removal was withdrawn at the hearing.

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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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. See section 49B(3)(a) 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.
The landlord filed an insurance claim after the end of the tenancy because of the damage. The insurer arranged for a test for methamphetamine and the levels were high in most of the rooms. The insurer remediated the contamination and fixed most of the damage. The insurance excess was $500 for each claim. Some of the repairs were less than the excess. The landlord has not claimed for any of the methamphetamine related damage or remediation, which is helpful because there was no testing done before the tenancy started.
The landlord has proved the insurer repaired at least 10 lots of damage less $5000 in excesses. The landlord has proved the damage happened during the tenancy. I can see from the photos the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. It seems most likely to me the damage was intentional.
The landlord has proved the tenant broke two windows in the garage and I have been provided with invoices. Given the amount of damage it seems most likely to me this was intentional damage. I find the tenant should pay $400 for the repairs.
There is a claim for replacement curtains. The curtains were replaced because of the methamphetamine readings. The landlord said there was also paint on the curtains but the photos taken at the end of the tenancy do not support the claim for replacement curtains because of paint damage. This means I have to consider whether I should allow replacement curtains because of the methamphetamine contamination. The landlord cannot prove the tenant used methamphetamine during her tenancy because there was no testing before the tenancy started. I find the landlord cannot prove it was the tenant who damaged the curtains, and this claim is dismissed.
The claims for repairs to the walls in bedroom 3 and to the rangehood are dismissed because the landlord did not have any evidence the work has been completed.
There is a claim for replacing the garage door. I accept this was damaged during the tenancy and had to be replaced. I have been provided with an invoice. The landlord said the insurer covered some of the cost and the landlord is claiming the balance she had to pay, $1966. With claims like this I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position she would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations and should not be better or worse off. The brand new garage door looks to be a significant improvement from what was there at the start of the tenancy. I find $500 to be a fair amount for the tenant to pay. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenant’s name will be published because there is public interest when tenants owe money at the end of a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5414829 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5414829 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions