What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421328 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agents For Shiril

How much money was awarded in case 5421328?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,031.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $812.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $705.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421328?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13401205-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421328 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agents For Shiril

How much money was awarded in case 5421328?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,031.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $812.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $705.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421328?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13401205-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Trillick Place, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421328 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421328 — net $3,826.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess	$1,250.00	Insurance excess
Repairs to Garage	$1,031.25	Repairs to Garage
Repairs to Kitchen	$812.25	Repairs to Kitchen
Repairs to Bathroom	$705.00	Repairs to Bathroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,826.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,826.50

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agents For Shiril Sharma $3,826.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today, 7 April 2026.
The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The only issue is the tenant’s liability for damage to the premises. The bond of $2,320.00 has already been refunded to the landlord. Background
There was a fire at the premises in late 2025 due to a stray firework set off by the tenant. The fire ignited in the gutter and spread to the roof space. The Fire Brigade caused water damage when putting out the fire.
The tenant was given 7 days to leave the premises as they were uninhabitable. The tenancy ended on 6 November 2025. Relevant Law
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.
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. The weekly rent was $650.00. The insurance excess was $1,250.00.
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. Analysis
The tenant did not really dispute liability for damage caused by the firework. The fire was caused carelessly by letting off a firework near the house. Although the gutter needed cleaning, and a nest in the gutter was apparently where the fire started, it has not been established that the sole cause of the fire was a maintenance failure on the landlord’s part.
The tenant questioned her liability for damage caused by the Fire Bridge when they gained entry to the roof cavity. In my view, the damage to the manhole cover (and the water damage) was a foreseeable consequence of letting off the firework. However, this issue is further addressed below.
I award the insurance excess of $1,250.00 for the cost of repairing fire damage to the roof.
The tenant disputed the claim for painting the garage, replacement of the tub, and the cost of repairing the manhole trim and cover. The tenant said the landlord’s photographs taken on 18 January 2026 reflected the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. The tenant said they had repainted parts of the house, including in the garage.
The ingoing inspection report does show damage and scuffing to the trims and lower wall next to the tub in the garage. The landlord’s exit photographs show further obvious damage to the walls in the garage, bedrooms and kitchen. Some areas of the garage had deteriorated during the tenancy, for example, compare ingoing photograph 089-Garage 3 with exit photograph 7120. I agree with the tenant that it is unclear why the laundry tub required replacement. As to the damage to the manhole, the parties agreed that this should have been covered by the insurance.
The repair invoice is itemised but the cost of repairs to the garage are grouped under one heading for a total price of $4,125.00. I divide this amount equally and award $1,031.25 for painting the garage. I decline to award the sums claimed for replacing the tub, the damaged wall trim, and the damage to the manhole. It has not been established that the tub was damaged, the wall trim had some damage at the start of the tenancy, and the manhole damage is subsumed within the insurance claim.
The tenant disputed the claim for work to the kitchen. The tenant said the kitchen cupboards were left in the same condition as at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord’s photographs show a cupboard door off its hinges in the kitchen and a drawer with broken handles. The tenant said the handles were wearing out and breaking during the tenancy. The inspection report dated 8 May 2025 mentioned that a cupboard door had fallen off but did not refer to any broken handles (which would have been very noticeable).
Reattaching the kitchen door could be seen as maintenance. Kitchen doors do need adjustment over time, and the tenant lived in the premises for 3½ years. The tenant said she told the landlord about the cupboard and that it kept coming off. It is more difficult to view the damaged kitchen drawer handles as wear and tear. The handles have snapped in two which on the face of it would require a level of force. I award half the amount claimed for kitchen repairs, an award of $812.25.
The tenant disputed the claim for replacing the vanity. The landlord’s photographs show water damage affecting the vanity drawers and cracking on the sink. The ingoing inspection photographs dated 7 April 2022 do not show any cracking to the vanity but do, in my view, show the beginning of swelling from water damage to the drawer. The tenant said this progressed over time.
I find that the bathroom vanity needed to be replaced partly due to tenant damage (cracking) and partly due to water damage (the swelling cupboard) which predated the tenancy and may have been made worse by ordinary domestic use of the bathroom. I award half the claimed cost, an award of $705.00.
The property was constructed in about 2003. I have considered depreciation. I do not consider it would be appropriate to further discount the award, when it has already been reduced for other reasons and therefore reflects a discounted amount. Filing Fee
The landlord’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421328 — net $3,826.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess	$1,250.00	Insurance excess
Repairs to Garage	$1,031.25	Repairs to Garage
Repairs to Kitchen	$812.25	Repairs to Kitchen
Repairs to Bathroom	$705.00	Repairs to Bathroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,826.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,826.50

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agents For Shiril Sharma $3,826.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today, 7 April 2026.
The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The only issue is the tenant’s liability for damage to the premises. The bond of $2,320.00 has already been refunded to the landlord. Background
There was a fire at the premises in late 2025 due to a stray firework set off by the tenant. The fire ignited in the gutter and spread to the roof space. The Fire Brigade caused water damage when putting out the fire.
The tenant was given 7 days to leave the premises as they were uninhabitable. The tenancy ended on 6 November 2025. Relevant Law
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.
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. The weekly rent was $650.00. The insurance excess was $1,250.00.
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. Analysis
The tenant did not really dispute liability for damage caused by the firework. The fire was caused carelessly by letting off a firework near the house. Although the gutter needed cleaning, and a nest in the gutter was apparently where the fire started, it has not been established that the sole cause of the fire was a maintenance failure on the landlord’s part.
The tenant questioned her liability for damage caused by the Fire Bridge when they gained entry to the roof cavity. In my view, the damage to the manhole cover (and the water damage) was a foreseeable consequence of letting off the firework. However, this issue is further addressed below.
I award the insurance excess of $1,250.00 for the cost of repairing fire damage to the roof.
The tenant disputed the claim for painting the garage, replacement of the tub, and the cost of repairing the manhole trim and cover. The tenant said the landlord’s photographs taken on 18 January 2026 reflected the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. The tenant said they had repainted parts of the house, including in the garage.
The ingoing inspection report does show damage and scuffing to the trims and lower wall next to the tub in the garage. The landlord’s exit photographs show further obvious damage to the walls in the garage, bedrooms and kitchen. Some areas of the garage had deteriorated during the tenancy, for example, compare ingoing photograph 089-Garage 3 with exit photograph 7120. I agree with the tenant that it is unclear why the laundry tub required replacement. As to the damage to the manhole, the parties agreed that this should have been covered by the insurance.
The repair invoice is itemised but the cost of repairs to the garage are grouped under one heading for a total price of $4,125.00. I divide this amount equally and award $1,031.25 for painting the garage. I decline to award the sums claimed for replacing the tub, the damaged wall trim, and the damage to the manhole. It has not been established that the tub was damaged, the wall trim had some damage at the start of the tenancy, and the manhole damage is subsumed within the insurance claim.
The tenant disputed the claim for work to the kitchen. The tenant said the kitchen cupboards were left in the same condition as at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord’s photographs show a cupboard door off its hinges in the kitchen and a drawer with broken handles. The tenant said the handles were wearing out and breaking during the tenancy. The inspection report dated 8 May 2025 mentioned that a cupboard door had fallen off but did not refer to any broken handles (which would have been very noticeable).
Reattaching the kitchen door could be seen as maintenance. Kitchen doors do need adjustment over time, and the tenant lived in the premises for 3½ years. The tenant said she told the landlord about the cupboard and that it kept coming off. It is more difficult to view the damaged kitchen drawer handles as wear and tear. The handles have snapped in two which on the face of it would require a level of force. I award half the amount claimed for kitchen repairs, an award of $812.25.
The tenant disputed the claim for replacing the vanity. The landlord’s photographs show water damage affecting the vanity drawers and cracking on the sink. The ingoing inspection photographs dated 7 April 2022 do not show any cracking to the vanity but do, in my view, show the beginning of swelling from water damage to the drawer. The tenant said this progressed over time.
I find that the bathroom vanity needed to be replaced partly due to tenant damage (cracking) and partly due to water damage (the swelling cupboard) which predated the tenancy and may have been made worse by ordinary domestic use of the bathroom. I award half the claimed cost, an award of $705.00.
The property was constructed in about 2003. I have considered depreciation. I do not consider it would be appropriate to further discount the award, when it has already been reduced for other reasons and therefore reflects a discounted amount. Filing Fee
The landlord’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421328 — Property damage at 10 Trillick Place, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421328 — Property damage at 10 Trillick Place, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions