What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5420865 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5420865?

Electrician Costs: $315.69 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Remediation: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $32.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5420865?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5420865?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13709154-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5420865 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5420865?

Electrician Costs: $315.69 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Remediation: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $32.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5420865?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5420865?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13709154-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 40 Hayton Road, Wigram, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5420865 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5420865 — net $996.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$32.65	Water rates
Repairs: Wall remediation	$120.00	Repairs: Wall remediation
Insurance excess - bathroom vanity	$500.00	Insurance excess - bathroom vanity
Electrician costs	$315.69	Electrician costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$996.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$996.34

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $996.34 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $996.34 (5981635-007) to [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,079.66 (5981635-007) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

On 28 December 2025 the landlord filed an application seeking refund of the bond, water rates, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Both parties appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 9 October 2024 and ended on 10 October 2025.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. This was not disputed by the tenants. The amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
The landlord seeks compensation totalling $80.00 after paying a contractor to clean the Council provided red, green and yellow lid rubbish and recycling bins.
The landlord claims the bins were provided in a clean and tidy condition at the commencement of the tenancy but at the end of the tenancy they were unclean and dirty.
The tenants dispute the bins were provided in a clean and tidy condition. They said the landlord had told them they were going to be cleaned due to their foul odour, but this never occurred. Analysis and decision
To make an order for compensation the Tribunal must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant failed to return the bins in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a photograph they say was taken at the end of the tenancy. This photograph showed the exterior of the red and green lid bins beside five cardboard boxes. The landlord has not made a claim for rubbish removal costs. The landlord failed to provide the Tribunal with photographs proving the condition of the bins at the commencement of the tenancy. The photograph provided did not include the yellow lid bin, nor did the photographs prove the condition of the interior of the bins at the end of the tenancy. Based on the available evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenants have failed to return the bins in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and the claim is dismissed.

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. Did the tenants damage the wall
The landlord seeks compensation of $120.00 after paying a contractor to patch repair wall damage following the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy check list which records the property was freshly painted at the commencement of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy the landlords discovered an area of wall damage in the lounge, approximately 20mm x 60mm.
The tenants acknowledge the wall was damaged after they removed an adhesive picture hook. The tenants said the damage was repaired with filler and they dispute the amount claimed. Analysis and decision
To award compensation the Tribunal must be satisfied the damage occurred during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
Having heard from the parties and considering the evidence the Tribunal finds the wall damage occurred during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The damage was obvious, poorly repaired, and had not been sanded or patch painted. The Tribunal is satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable and that is what is ordered.

Did the tenants damage the bathroom vanity?

The landlord seeks $500.00 compensation, the cost of their insurance excess, after successfully claiming insurance to replace the damaged bathroom vanity. The landlord provided the Tribunal with a quote for the replacement cost of the vanity ($439.00) and installation costs ($600.00 + GST). The insurance details are recorded in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord stated that the bathroom vanity was approximately three years old at the commencement of the tenancy and was provided in a very good condition. The pre-tenancy inspection report, agreed by the tenants, does not record any defects with the vanity.
The landlord provided end of tenancy photographs of the vanity which showed the vinyl along the top of a draw and cupboard had cracked. This cracking had allowed water to penetrate the wood underneath causing the draw and door to swell. The landlord said the tenants failed to bring this issue to their attention during the tenancy. But discovered the damage via a Facebook post shortly before the end of the tenancy, where the tenants sought advice from the community about their liability.
The tenants dispute liability for the damage to the vanity, claiming it is fair wear and tear. They said the damaged occurred as the result of moisture build up in the bathroom which caused the vinyl to crack leading to the wood swelling. The tenants told the Tribunal they attempted to prevent any further damage to the area by placing a sponge over the top of the affected area to soak up water. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant liable for the insurance excess to replace the vanity for the following reasons: a. The vanity was provided in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. b. The tenants did not disclose the cracking to the landlord when it occurred. c. The tenant’s attempted to minimise any further damage to the area by placing a sponge over it to collect water. This action likely increased the damage as it allowed the water to sit over the damaged area. d. Under section 40(1)(d) of the Act, tenant’s have a duty to notify landlords of any damage to the property. The tenant’s failed to do this. Had the landlords been informed of the damage they could have arranged for a contractor to attend the property and undertake repairs. This could have mitigated the need for the vanity to be replaced.
The tenant’s have not disproved liability, and the amount claimed is ordered. Is the tenant liable to pay the electrician’s call out charge?
The landlord seeks compensation of $315.60 after paying an electrical contractor to attend the property to investigate the tenant’s complaint of high-power bills. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord said the tenant complained about excessive power bills and asked for this to be investigated. The landlord arranged for two separate electrical contractors to undertake a check of the hot water cylinder and electrics at the property. The first electrician attended in April 2025. No issues were identified and the tenant was given some advice on power saving measures.
The landlord said that following further complaints by the tenants of high power use, they arranged for a second contractor to attend the property in August 2025.
The landlord said that the second contractor completed a thorough inspection of the hot water cylinder and electrics. No issues were identified. The contractors invoice records that: a. The electrical current draws were checked on the switchboards. b. Confirmed there were no loads that could automatically turn on. c. Confirmed there were no outdoor sockets. The contractor indicated the graph of power use for the property was “very typical” and noted: “Hot water cylinder is not ripple relay controlled and has a reasonably powerful 3kW element for its size (180 litres) so it is able to run all of the time and it would be difficult to drain it sown faster than it can heat. With it also being mains pressure, it would be easy to cycle through more than one while cylinder of water a day without being aware because it wouldn’t run cold like a ripple controlled cylinder would. I assume that the cylinder is likely the cause of most of the power usage”
The tenants dispute the electrician’s call out charge. They say their power usage in the property was significantly higher than their current electricity costs and attributed this to a faulty thermostat and a leak in the hot water cylinder. The tenants said that the landlord’s contractors repaired the leak and fixed the thermostat on or around 20 August 2025.
The tenant’s claims were disputed by the landlords and not supported by their contractors invoice. Analysis and decision
The landlord has provided evidence to prove that a qualified electrician attended the property in August 2025 and no issue were identified with the hot water cylinder or electrical appliance. The contractor’s opinion was that the tenant’s electricity use for the property was “typical” for that time of year.
The tenants have not provided any corroborative evidence, in the form of a report from a registered electrician or plumber, to support their assertion that there was a fault with the electrics at the property, in particular the hot water cylinder, which lead to high power bills.
Having heard from both parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal prefers the evidence of the landlord, and is satisfied the high-power bills were as a result of the way the tenants were living in the property and not due to any electrical defects. The amount claimed is ordered. Other matters
Because [The landlord/s], [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Despite being substantially successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5420865 — net $996.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$32.65	Water rates
Repairs: Wall remediation	$120.00	Repairs: Wall remediation
Insurance excess - bathroom vanity	$500.00	Insurance excess - bathroom vanity
Electrician costs	$315.69	Electrician costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$996.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$996.34

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] $996.34 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $996.34 (5981635-007) to [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,079.66 (5981635-007) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

On 28 December 2025 the landlord filed an application seeking refund of the bond, water rates, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Both parties appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 9 October 2024 and ended on 10 October 2025.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. This was not disputed by the tenants. The amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
The landlord seeks compensation totalling $80.00 after paying a contractor to clean the Council provided red, green and yellow lid rubbish and recycling bins.
The landlord claims the bins were provided in a clean and tidy condition at the commencement of the tenancy but at the end of the tenancy they were unclean and dirty.
The tenants dispute the bins were provided in a clean and tidy condition. They said the landlord had told them they were going to be cleaned due to their foul odour, but this never occurred. Analysis and decision
To make an order for compensation the Tribunal must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant failed to return the bins in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a photograph they say was taken at the end of the tenancy. This photograph showed the exterior of the red and green lid bins beside five cardboard boxes. The landlord has not made a claim for rubbish removal costs. The landlord failed to provide the Tribunal with photographs proving the condition of the bins at the commencement of the tenancy. The photograph provided did not include the yellow lid bin, nor did the photographs prove the condition of the interior of the bins at the end of the tenancy. Based on the available evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenants have failed to return the bins in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and the claim is dismissed.

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. Did the tenants damage the wall
The landlord seeks compensation of $120.00 after paying a contractor to patch repair wall damage following the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy check list which records the property was freshly painted at the commencement of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy the landlords discovered an area of wall damage in the lounge, approximately 20mm x 60mm.
The tenants acknowledge the wall was damaged after they removed an adhesive picture hook. The tenants said the damage was repaired with filler and they dispute the amount claimed. Analysis and decision
To award compensation the Tribunal must be satisfied the damage occurred during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
Having heard from the parties and considering the evidence the Tribunal finds the wall damage occurred during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The damage was obvious, poorly repaired, and had not been sanded or patch painted. The Tribunal is satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable and that is what is ordered.

Did the tenants damage the bathroom vanity?

The landlord seeks $500.00 compensation, the cost of their insurance excess, after successfully claiming insurance to replace the damaged bathroom vanity. The landlord provided the Tribunal with a quote for the replacement cost of the vanity ($439.00) and installation costs ($600.00 + GST). The insurance details are recorded in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord stated that the bathroom vanity was approximately three years old at the commencement of the tenancy and was provided in a very good condition. The pre-tenancy inspection report, agreed by the tenants, does not record any defects with the vanity.
The landlord provided end of tenancy photographs of the vanity which showed the vinyl along the top of a draw and cupboard had cracked. This cracking had allowed water to penetrate the wood underneath causing the draw and door to swell. The landlord said the tenants failed to bring this issue to their attention during the tenancy. But discovered the damage via a Facebook post shortly before the end of the tenancy, where the tenants sought advice from the community about their liability.
The tenants dispute liability for the damage to the vanity, claiming it is fair wear and tear. They said the damaged occurred as the result of moisture build up in the bathroom which caused the vinyl to crack leading to the wood swelling. The tenants told the Tribunal they attempted to prevent any further damage to the area by placing a sponge over the top of the affected area to soak up water. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant liable for the insurance excess to replace the vanity for the following reasons: a. The vanity was provided in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. b. The tenants did not disclose the cracking to the landlord when it occurred. c. The tenant’s attempted to minimise any further damage to the area by placing a sponge over it to collect water. This action likely increased the damage as it allowed the water to sit over the damaged area. d. Under section 40(1)(d) of the Act, tenant’s have a duty to notify landlords of any damage to the property. The tenant’s failed to do this. Had the landlords been informed of the damage they could have arranged for a contractor to attend the property and undertake repairs. This could have mitigated the need for the vanity to be replaced.
The tenant’s have not disproved liability, and the amount claimed is ordered. Is the tenant liable to pay the electrician’s call out charge?
The landlord seeks compensation of $315.60 after paying an electrical contractor to attend the property to investigate the tenant’s complaint of high-power bills. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord said the tenant complained about excessive power bills and asked for this to be investigated. The landlord arranged for two separate electrical contractors to undertake a check of the hot water cylinder and electrics at the property. The first electrician attended in April 2025. No issues were identified and the tenant was given some advice on power saving measures.
The landlord said that following further complaints by the tenants of high power use, they arranged for a second contractor to attend the property in August 2025.
The landlord said that the second contractor completed a thorough inspection of the hot water cylinder and electrics. No issues were identified. The contractors invoice records that: a. The electrical current draws were checked on the switchboards. b. Confirmed there were no loads that could automatically turn on. c. Confirmed there were no outdoor sockets. The contractor indicated the graph of power use for the property was “very typical” and noted: “Hot water cylinder is not ripple relay controlled and has a reasonably powerful 3kW element for its size (180 litres) so it is able to run all of the time and it would be difficult to drain it sown faster than it can heat. With it also being mains pressure, it would be easy to cycle through more than one while cylinder of water a day without being aware because it wouldn’t run cold like a ripple controlled cylinder would. I assume that the cylinder is likely the cause of most of the power usage”
The tenants dispute the electrician’s call out charge. They say their power usage in the property was significantly higher than their current electricity costs and attributed this to a faulty thermostat and a leak in the hot water cylinder. The tenants said that the landlord’s contractors repaired the leak and fixed the thermostat on or around 20 August 2025.
The tenant’s claims were disputed by the landlords and not supported by their contractors invoice. Analysis and decision
The landlord has provided evidence to prove that a qualified electrician attended the property in August 2025 and no issue were identified with the hot water cylinder or electrical appliance. The contractor’s opinion was that the tenant’s electricity use for the property was “typical” for that time of year.
The tenants have not provided any corroborative evidence, in the form of a report from a registered electrician or plumber, to support their assertion that there was a fault with the electrics at the property, in particular the hot water cylinder, which lead to high power bills.
Having heard from both parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal prefers the evidence of the landlord, and is satisfied the high-power bills were as a result of the way the tenants were living in the property and not due to any electrical defects. The amount claimed is ordered. Other matters
Because [The landlord/s], [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Despite being substantially successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5420865 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 40 Hayton Road, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5420865 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 40 Hayton Road, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants damage the bathroom vanity?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants damage the bathroom vanity?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions