What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5415253?

The tribunal order states: Sreekumar Ramakrishnan Nair, Sujith Madathumalil Somanadhan Pillay and

How much money was awarded in case 5415253?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415253?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415253?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13661183-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5415253?

The tribunal order states: Sreekumar Ramakrishnan Nair, Sujith Madathumalil Somanadhan Pillay and

How much money was awarded in case 5415253?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415253?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415253?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13661183-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

109A Terry Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5415253 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5415253 — net $1,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for cabinet damage	$1,000.00	Insurance excess for cabinet damage
Net award	$1,000.00
Bond	$3,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,000.00

Order

Sreekumar Ramakrishnan Nair, Sujith Madathumalil Somanadhan Pillay and Radhika Attodiputhenpura Radhakrishnan to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Acting Agents For Hiren Shah Nadine Stone $1,000.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 (BN-10095626) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Acting Agents For Hiren Shah Nadine Stone: $1,000.00 Sreekumar Ramakrishnan Nair, Sujith Madathumalil Somanadhan Pillay and Radhika Attodiputhenpura Radhakrishnan: $2,800.00
The landlord’s remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
This tenancy commenced on 23 March 2024 and ended on 27 October 2025. The weekly rent was $950.00 and the bond paid was $3,800.00.
The landlord seeks compensation totalling $3,300.00 relating to alleged damage to kitchen bench tops, cabinetry, and a dishwasher.
The principal issue is whether the landlord has proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenants breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) and caused the damage claimed.
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 of the Act.
A landlord seeking compensation bears the onus of proving both that damage occurred during the tenancy and that the tenant is legally responsible for that damage. Mere suspicion or speculation is insufficient.
The Tribunal must carefully distinguish between damage caused by a tenant’s breach of duty and damage that may equally be attributable to defects in workmanship, latent defects, ordinary deterioration, or other non-actionable causes.

Have the tenants breached their legal obligations?

Kitchen bench top and island bench damage

The landlord seeks compensation for two separate insurance excesses relating to cracks appearing in the main kitchen bench top and island bench top.
The landlord relied on ingoing and outgoing inspection evidence establishing that the bench tops were undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy and that cracks were present by June 2025 and at the conclusion of the tenancy. The landlord submitted that the damage may have been caused by heat exposure or impact from hot items being placed on the surfaces. However, the landlord accepted that the kitchen company engaged to inspect and replace the bench tops was unable to determine the cause of the cracking. The landlord also acknowledged there was no obvious impact damage and no clear evidence establishing precisely how the cracking occurred.
The tenants denied causing the damage. They stated they took care with the surfaces, consistently used mats or boards beneath hot items, and believed the cracking may have resulted from workmanship or material defects. They further stated that once the cracking was noticed, they took additional care, and no worsening of the cracks occurred thereafter.
I accept that the cracks appeared during the tenancy. However, that fact alone is insufficient to establish liability under the Act. The Tribunal must still be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage resulted from intentional or careless conduct attributable to the tenants.
The evidence does not reach that threshold. The landlord’s case rests largely on inference and suspicion. No expert evidence was produced establishing the likely cause of the cracks. The kitchen company itself was unable to ascertain the mechanism of damage. There was no persuasive evidence of impact damage, burn marks, or other physical indicators clearly demonstrating misuse by the tenants. Importantly, the cracks did not progressively worsen after discovery, which is equally consistent with a structural or material defect.
The Tribunal cannot simply assume tenant liability because damage arose during the tenancy. Where competing explanations remain reasonably open on the evidence, and the landlord cannot establish that careless or intentional conduct more probably than not caused the damage, the claim must fail.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied the landlord has proved that the tenants breached section 40(2)(a) of the Act in relation to the bench top cracking. The claims relating to the kitchen bench top and island bench top are dismissed. Cabinet damage
The landlord seeks compensation for water damage affecting cabinetry within the fridge space.
The landlord’s evidence was that there was no water damage at the commencement of the tenancy and that water damage was present at the conclusion of the tenancy. The landlord stated there were no recorded plumbing leaks or other water issues in the kitchen area during the tenancy and that the damage was isolated to the cabinetry surrounding the tenant’s refrigerator space.
Importantly, the tenants acknowledged that their refrigerator leaked water for approximately two to three days before the issue was discovered and addressed.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the cabinet damage resulted from water escaping from the tenants’ refrigerator. The tenants’ own evidence substantially supports that conclusion. The damage was localised to the refrigerator cavity area and no alternative source of water ingress was identified.
The remaining question is whether the tenants are legally responsible for that damage. In my view they are. The escape of water from the refrigerator was connected to an appliance under the tenants’ control and occupation. Even if the leak itself was accidental, tenants remain responsible under section 40(2)(a) for careless damage caused during the tenancy.
The landlord seeks recovery of a $1,000.00 insurance excess. Insurance excesses are recoverable where they represent reasonable losses flowing from tenant damage. I am satisfied that amount was reasonably incurred.
Accordingly, the landlord is entitled to compensation of $1,000.00 for cabinet damage. Dishwasher damage
The landlord seeks compensation of $300.00 relating to a crack in the top plate area of the dishwasher.
The landlord accepted there was no direct evidence as to how the crack occurred and no insurer or expert opinion identifying the cause of the damage. The landlord speculated that something may have impacted the dishwasher surface, but acknowledged there was no proof of that.
The tenants denied causing the damage intentionally or carelessly. They stated they rarely used the dishwasher and did not notice the crack during the tenancy. They explained the crack was not located on the door or in an obvious visible area and they only became aware of it after the exit inspection.
Again, while the damage appears to have been identified at the conclusion of the tenancy, the landlord bears the burden of proving that the tenants caused the damage through breach of their obligations.
The evidence falls short of establishing that proposition. There is no expert evidence, no direct evidence of impact, and no persuasive circumstantial evidence establishing careless use. The fact that the crack existed at the end of the tenancy is insufficient, without more, to establish liability.
Further, a dishwasher is a depreciating chattel with a finite useful life, commonly estimated at approximately 10 years. The landlord did not provide evidence regarding the age, condition, remaining useful life, or depreciated value of the appliance.
In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal cannot properly assess the landlord’s actual loss or avoid the risk of impermissible betterment through replacement with a newer appliance.
Accordingly, the dishwasher claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
Neither party was wholly successful. Both parties achieved partial success in the proceeding. In those circumstances, I decline to make any order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
No suppression order is made. I am not satisfied there are grounds under section 95A of the Act sufficient to outweigh the public interest in open justice.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5415253 — net $1,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for cabinet damage	$1,000.00	Insurance excess for cabinet damage
Net award	$1,000.00
Bond	$3,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,000.00

Order

Sreekumar Ramakrishnan Nair, Sujith Madathumalil Somanadhan Pillay and Radhika Attodiputhenpura Radhakrishnan to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Acting Agents For Hiren Shah Nadine Stone $1,000.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 (BN-10095626) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Acting Agents For Hiren Shah Nadine Stone: $1,000.00 Sreekumar Ramakrishnan Nair, Sujith Madathumalil Somanadhan Pillay and Radhika Attodiputhenpura Radhakrishnan: $2,800.00
The landlord’s remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
This tenancy commenced on 23 March 2024 and ended on 27 October 2025. The weekly rent was $950.00 and the bond paid was $3,800.00.
The landlord seeks compensation totalling $3,300.00 relating to alleged damage to kitchen bench tops, cabinetry, and a dishwasher.
The principal issue is whether the landlord has proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenants breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) and caused the damage claimed.
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 of the Act.
A landlord seeking compensation bears the onus of proving both that damage occurred during the tenancy and that the tenant is legally responsible for that damage. Mere suspicion or speculation is insufficient.
The Tribunal must carefully distinguish between damage caused by a tenant’s breach of duty and damage that may equally be attributable to defects in workmanship, latent defects, ordinary deterioration, or other non-actionable causes.

Have the tenants breached their legal obligations?

Kitchen bench top and island bench damage

The landlord seeks compensation for two separate insurance excesses relating to cracks appearing in the main kitchen bench top and island bench top.
The landlord relied on ingoing and outgoing inspection evidence establishing that the bench tops were undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy and that cracks were present by June 2025 and at the conclusion of the tenancy. The landlord submitted that the damage may have been caused by heat exposure or impact from hot items being placed on the surfaces. However, the landlord accepted that the kitchen company engaged to inspect and replace the bench tops was unable to determine the cause of the cracking. The landlord also acknowledged there was no obvious impact damage and no clear evidence establishing precisely how the cracking occurred.
The tenants denied causing the damage. They stated they took care with the surfaces, consistently used mats or boards beneath hot items, and believed the cracking may have resulted from workmanship or material defects. They further stated that once the cracking was noticed, they took additional care, and no worsening of the cracks occurred thereafter.
I accept that the cracks appeared during the tenancy. However, that fact alone is insufficient to establish liability under the Act. The Tribunal must still be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage resulted from intentional or careless conduct attributable to the tenants.
The evidence does not reach that threshold. The landlord’s case rests largely on inference and suspicion. No expert evidence was produced establishing the likely cause of the cracks. The kitchen company itself was unable to ascertain the mechanism of damage. There was no persuasive evidence of impact damage, burn marks, or other physical indicators clearly demonstrating misuse by the tenants. Importantly, the cracks did not progressively worsen after discovery, which is equally consistent with a structural or material defect.
The Tribunal cannot simply assume tenant liability because damage arose during the tenancy. Where competing explanations remain reasonably open on the evidence, and the landlord cannot establish that careless or intentional conduct more probably than not caused the damage, the claim must fail.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied the landlord has proved that the tenants breached section 40(2)(a) of the Act in relation to the bench top cracking. The claims relating to the kitchen bench top and island bench top are dismissed. Cabinet damage
The landlord seeks compensation for water damage affecting cabinetry within the fridge space.
The landlord’s evidence was that there was no water damage at the commencement of the tenancy and that water damage was present at the conclusion of the tenancy. The landlord stated there were no recorded plumbing leaks or other water issues in the kitchen area during the tenancy and that the damage was isolated to the cabinetry surrounding the tenant’s refrigerator space.
Importantly, the tenants acknowledged that their refrigerator leaked water for approximately two to three days before the issue was discovered and addressed.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the cabinet damage resulted from water escaping from the tenants’ refrigerator. The tenants’ own evidence substantially supports that conclusion. The damage was localised to the refrigerator cavity area and no alternative source of water ingress was identified.
The remaining question is whether the tenants are legally responsible for that damage. In my view they are. The escape of water from the refrigerator was connected to an appliance under the tenants’ control and occupation. Even if the leak itself was accidental, tenants remain responsible under section 40(2)(a) for careless damage caused during the tenancy.
The landlord seeks recovery of a $1,000.00 insurance excess. Insurance excesses are recoverable where they represent reasonable losses flowing from tenant damage. I am satisfied that amount was reasonably incurred.
Accordingly, the landlord is entitled to compensation of $1,000.00 for cabinet damage. Dishwasher damage
The landlord seeks compensation of $300.00 relating to a crack in the top plate area of the dishwasher.
The landlord accepted there was no direct evidence as to how the crack occurred and no insurer or expert opinion identifying the cause of the damage. The landlord speculated that something may have impacted the dishwasher surface, but acknowledged there was no proof of that.
The tenants denied causing the damage intentionally or carelessly. They stated they rarely used the dishwasher and did not notice the crack during the tenancy. They explained the crack was not located on the door or in an obvious visible area and they only became aware of it after the exit inspection.
Again, while the damage appears to have been identified at the conclusion of the tenancy, the landlord bears the burden of proving that the tenants caused the damage through breach of their obligations.
The evidence falls short of establishing that proposition. There is no expert evidence, no direct evidence of impact, and no persuasive circumstantial evidence establishing careless use. The fact that the crack existed at the end of the tenancy is insufficient, without more, to establish liability.
Further, a dishwasher is a depreciating chattel with a finite useful life, commonly estimated at approximately 10 years. The landlord did not provide evidence regarding the age, condition, remaining useful life, or depreciated value of the appliance.
In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal cannot properly assess the landlord’s actual loss or avoid the risk of impermissible betterment through replacement with a newer appliance.
Accordingly, the dishwasher claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
Neither party was wholly successful. Both parties achieved partial success in the proceeding. In those circumstances, I decline to make any order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
No suppression order is made. I am not satisfied there are grounds under section 95A of the Act sufficient to outweigh the public interest in open justice.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415253 — Property damage at 109A Terry Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415253 — Property damage at 109A Terry Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Have the tenants breached their legal obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Have the tenants breached their legal obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions