What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5420308 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 5420308?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5420308?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5420308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13645758-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5420308 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 5420308?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5420308?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5420308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13645758-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5420308 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

On 23 December 2025 the landlord filed an application seeking compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Juliette Sun, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenants appeared. Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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 (DC) TT233/02, 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.

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 of 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.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the oven control panel?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $615.25 for damage to the oven control panel. A quote for the costs of the repair was provided.

The landlord said that the oven was provided in good working order at the commencement of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy the oven was not working as the programme display was not functioning, and a button was missing. The landlord said the tenants caused the damage by failing to use the control panel correctly.

The tenant’s dispute the amount claimed saying they did not damage the oven and the landlord has failed to prove their loss.

The tenants said that at the commencement of the tenancy one of the buttons on the oven’s control panel was missing. This is reflected in the pre-tenancy inspection report. At the end of the tenancy the oven had been professionally cleaned and returned to the landlord in working order.

The tenants said the landlord did not repair the oven at the end of the tenancy. A quote was provided but there no invoice proving the repairs were completed. Decision and analysis

Compensation is money ordered to remedy an actual loss and to restore the applicant to the position they would have been in had the damage or breach not occurred.

In this case the Tribunal is not satisfied the landlord has proved the damage to the oven was caused by the tenants. That is because, there is evidence to show that the oven was showing signs of wear and tear at the commencement of the tenancy. When the tenant’s took possession of the property the oven was missing a button from its control panel. There was no evidence provided proving the tenant’s had operated the oven incorrectly or interfered with the oven’s control panel damaging the display function.

The landlord was unable to specify the age of the oven but noted the property was new in October 2014. The general life expectancy of an oven is eight years. I find it more likely than not the oven’s control panel was not functioning due to age related wear and tear and had likely exceeded its life expectancy.

Even if I am wrong on this point, compensation would not have been awarded. That is because the landlord failed to prove their actual loss. The landlord provided a quote for the cost of the repair. The Tribunal heard that the property was immediately marketed for sale and sold following the end of the tenancy. The costs of the repairs claimed were not completed. No evidence of an actual loss has been proved, and the claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant liable to pay for wall remediation and painting costs?

The landlord seeks compensation of $3,220.00 for wall remediation and painting costs. A quote for the amount claimed was provided.

The landlord states at the end of the tenancy the walls were marked with chips and dents and damaged where adhesive hooks had been incorrectly removed.

The landlord provided pre-tenancy inspection photographs which showed the walls in the property were marked, chipped and dented at the commencement of the tenancy. During the hearing the landlord accepted the property was showing signs of fair wear and tear at the commencement of the tenancy.

The landlord argued the end of tenancy photographs showed additional wall damage to the property which exceeded fair wear and tear. This damage included: a. Marks on the wall beside the toilet in the ensuite. b. A scuff mark on the master bedroom wall. c. A large white paint mark near the skirting board on the wall in bedroom two. d. Marks and chips out of the paint under the heatpump in the lounge. e. Scuff marks on the walls in the dining room. f. Scuff marks on the garage walls. g. Additional scuff marks in the wardrobes.

The tenants denied causing damage to the walls in the property. They stated that the property was already showing signs of wear and tear when they moved in. The tenants said that the pre-tenancy inspection photographs did not accurately reflect the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy because of shadowing, camera angle or lack of detail. The end of tenancy photographs were zoomed in on areas of damage. Several of these photographs identified areas of damage which the landlord later accepted was pre-existing.

The tenant’s also claim the landlord has failed to prove an actual loss. The landlord provided a quote for repairs and painting. The tenant said that the property was sold after the tenancy ended. They contacted the new owner who confirmed the property had been sold without the walls being repainted. Analysis and decision

Having heard from both parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to prove the tenant’s damaged the property. That is because the property was already showing signs of general wear and tear at the commencement of the tenancy. At the hearing the landlord identified several areas of damage they say the tenant was responsible for, which the Tribunal identified, and they later accepted, was pre-existing. Areas of new damage were consistent with fair wear and tear arising out of living in a property.

The Tribunal was not provided with any evidence to prove the landlord’s actual loss. The landlord provided a quote to repair and paint the walls. These repairs were not completed. The landlord failed to provide any evidence of prove the achieved sale price for the property was reduced due to the condition of the walls. As the landlord has failed to prove any loss, the claim for compensation is dismissed. Other matters

The tenants 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.

The tenants have been wholly successful in defence of the landlord’s claims and are granted name suppression.

Reasons