What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5417435 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 5417435?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $414.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5417435?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5417435?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13632660-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5417435 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 5417435?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $414.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5417435?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5417435?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13632660-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5417435 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5417435 — net $442.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Kitchen bench repairs	$414.00	Repairs: Kitchen bench repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$442.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$442.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord and tenant’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $442.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

On 18 December 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager] and [Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. [Tenant] appeared for both tenants. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 26 September 2022. The fixed term ended on 28 August 2023, thereafter the tenancy became periodic.
The tenancy ended on 17 November 2025.
The bond has been refunded to the parties. Are the tenant’s responsible for damage to the kitchen bench?
The landlord seeks $828.00 compensation after paying a contractor to repair the kitchen bench following the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for chips and cracks along the seams of the Formica bench top. The landlord’s position is that the chips and cracks are more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy photographs showing the condition of the kitchen bench at the commencement of the tenancy. These photographs show: a. A chip in the kitchen bench close to the sink; and b. The kitchen bench close to the hob was in good condition with no defects.
The end of tenancy photographs of the kitchen bench show: a. The existing damage to the kitchen bench beside the kitchen sink; and b. Damage in the form of cracks and chips in the bench top close to the hob. The cracks appear to be consistent with the edge of the bench being struck with a knife.
The tenant said the pre-tenancy inspection photographs are of such poor quality they do not prove the condition of the kitchen bench at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant said that they never notice an issue with the bench at the beginning of the tenancy, nor was the damage raised with them during the tenancy despite the property being subject to multiple inspections. Analysis and decision
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
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). See section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
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. See section 49B(1) of the Act.
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 Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the kitchen bench at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties and reviewing all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenants are responsible for the damage to the kitchen bench close to the hob. That is because the bench had multiple cracks and holes consistence with being struck with a knife at the end of the tenancy. This damage was not pre-existing. The Tribunal is not satisfied the tenants caused the damage to the kitchen bench close to the sink. Pre-tenancy photographs prove that this damage was pre- existing. Any additional damage to the area was likely caused by fair wear and tear due to the break in the seam.
The Tribunal’s role is to place the landlord in the position they would have been in had the damage not occurred, not to provide a betterment. In those circumstances, the Tribunal awards the landlord $414.00, being half the cost of kitchen bench repair. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A(1) of the Act provided that the Tribunal must, on application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, order that party’s name and identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Both parties have had some success in this matter. On that basis the landlord’s orders suppression of both the landlord and tenant’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5417435 — net $442.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Kitchen bench repairs	$414.00	Repairs: Kitchen bench repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$442.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$442.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord and tenant’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $442.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

On 18 December 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager] and [Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. [Tenant] appeared for both tenants. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 26 September 2022. The fixed term ended on 28 August 2023, thereafter the tenancy became periodic.
The tenancy ended on 17 November 2025.
The bond has been refunded to the parties. Are the tenant’s responsible for damage to the kitchen bench?
The landlord seeks $828.00 compensation after paying a contractor to repair the kitchen bench following the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for chips and cracks along the seams of the Formica bench top. The landlord’s position is that the chips and cracks are more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy photographs showing the condition of the kitchen bench at the commencement of the tenancy. These photographs show: a. A chip in the kitchen bench close to the sink; and b. The kitchen bench close to the hob was in good condition with no defects.
The end of tenancy photographs of the kitchen bench show: a. The existing damage to the kitchen bench beside the kitchen sink; and b. Damage in the form of cracks and chips in the bench top close to the hob. The cracks appear to be consistent with the edge of the bench being struck with a knife.
The tenant said the pre-tenancy inspection photographs are of such poor quality they do not prove the condition of the kitchen bench at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant said that they never notice an issue with the bench at the beginning of the tenancy, nor was the damage raised with them during the tenancy despite the property being subject to multiple inspections. Analysis and decision
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
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). See section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
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. See section 49B(1) of the Act.
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 Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the kitchen bench at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties and reviewing all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenants are responsible for the damage to the kitchen bench close to the hob. That is because the bench had multiple cracks and holes consistence with being struck with a knife at the end of the tenancy. This damage was not pre-existing. The Tribunal is not satisfied the tenants caused the damage to the kitchen bench close to the sink. Pre-tenancy photographs prove that this damage was pre- existing. Any additional damage to the area was likely caused by fair wear and tear due to the break in the seam.
The Tribunal’s role is to place the landlord in the position they would have been in had the damage not occurred, not to provide a betterment. In those circumstances, the Tribunal awards the landlord $414.00, being half the cost of kitchen bench repair. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A(1) of the Act provided that the Tribunal must, on application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, order that party’s name and identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Both parties have had some success in this matter. On that basis the landlord’s orders suppression of both the landlord and tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5417435 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5417435 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions