What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5423641 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5423641?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423641?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423641?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13439848-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5423641 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5423641?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423641?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423641?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13439848-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5423641 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
This tenancy commenced 27 May 2023 and ended 27 November 2025. There remained a vacated dispute regarding damage to one curtain. This landlord application was lodged on 9 January 2026. Previous mediation failed to reach a settlement.
Some three months into the tenancy, a pet agreement was signed that permitted one cat, Neo, to reside. No cat door existed nor was one installed. The tenants said cat access or exit was provided “on demand”. The possible use of open doors and windows to facilitate such movements by Neo, without human assistance, cannot be ruled out.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the curtain as 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The premises had several curtains and blinds. However, only one was cited as damaged during the tenancy by the cat. That was one long curtain (of two) which covered the external window/ranch slider of the living room.
The damaged curtain was the right hand one (from inside). At rest, that was close to the opening ranch slider, initially at least.
I heard from the tenants that it became apparent to them that the curtain was prone to flapping outside when the door was open and they believe any damage occurred during such flapping. No curtain tie back was installed.
The tenants stated they released the curtain so it could be drawn to the left (away from the door). This placed it near an opening window – the bottom of that window and latch was similar in height to that of the door handle when the curtain was righthanded.
The alternative advanced by the landlord is that the damage was caused by Neo. Photos show some picking on the curtain backing that could be consistent with a cat’s clawing. The photo also shows a larger tear that appears to align with both the door and window latch height. The cause of that is not so obvious.
Having considered both likely scenarios, I consider it more than likely that the some of the damage to the curtain was caused by Neo, the minimal damage indicating entry through the open window as any climbing to exit would have caused greater damage with signs of it lower than here.
I note the tenants’ requested permission for Neo to reside. That was granted. The reason for permission for a pet to reside is the possibility of pet related damage. What is curious is that there is no obvious record of any routine inspection of the curtains during the tenancy, certainty no record of damage as later noted at exit. I consider it more than likely for the damage to have occurred during the main stage of the tenancy and not at the end, given the tenure of Neo’s stay.
Having rightfully required the tenants to seek permission to have a cat, some inspection for possible related damage during the routine inspections might have been expected. Given the lack of scratching of other fixtures or furnishings throughout, it is reasonable to consider Neo not prone to scratching, making the localised damage harder to assign.
So while I find some damage to be more than likely from the cat, this is by the finest of margin and not total. With that I mind I turn to the landlord’s loss.
The premises was near new at commencement, including the curtains. The landlord sought compensation for the estimated cost of replacing that curtain, being $520.00. I note that no basis for the estimate was provided but it appears reasonable on a full replacement cost basis. There has been no replacement curtain obtained or installed. A new tenancy continues today with the curtain in the state as evidenced at the end of the tenancy. Whether there has been subsequent deterioration since is moot but that would need consideration if a depreciated award was to be made.
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
The landlord has not established a financial loss. There is potentially a ground to consider accelerated depreciation but even if I am wrong and this should be applied here, I consider it would be minimal, reflecting the continued usability of the curtain “as is”.
The bond is intended to cover any outstanding rent, damages, or other costs, and if there is disagreement, it is appropriate for the bond to remain with Tenancy Services until the Tribunal resolves the dispute.
The tenants expressed frustration with the extended delay in the return of the bulk, and undisputed amount, of their bond. It is concerning they stated they were previously told the whole bond would be intentionally withheld (by another agent that was not present at the hearing). This is unproven but the frustration and financial distress to the tenants from the lengthy delay in bond recovery is understandable.
Holding the bond in dispute is not, by itself, a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 today and it does not give rise to compensation for the tenant. There are no grounds here for any consideration of the delay in the return of the bond. The application by the landlord was not frivolous, nor without some merit despite the determination here.
When considering claims such as here, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord has experienced a loss due to any tenant careless action or failure that establishes a loss that should be compensated. In reaching this conclusion I have also considered the broader merits and justice of the facts as known.
The application is dismissed. The bond is returned to the tenants. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or 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.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
Given the outcome, I consider it appropriate to order tenant name suppression.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
This tenancy commenced 27 May 2023 and ended 27 November 2025. There remained a vacated dispute regarding damage to one curtain. This landlord application was lodged on 9 January 2026. Previous mediation failed to reach a settlement.
Some three months into the tenancy, a pet agreement was signed that permitted one cat, Neo, to reside. No cat door existed nor was one installed. The tenants said cat access or exit was provided “on demand”. The possible use of open doors and windows to facilitate such movements by Neo, without human assistance, cannot be ruled out.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the curtain as 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The premises had several curtains and blinds. However, only one was cited as damaged during the tenancy by the cat. That was one long curtain (of two) which covered the external window/ranch slider of the living room.
The damaged curtain was the right hand one (from inside). At rest, that was close to the opening ranch slider, initially at least.
I heard from the tenants that it became apparent to them that the curtain was prone to flapping outside when the door was open and they believe any damage occurred during such flapping. No curtain tie back was installed.
The tenants stated they released the curtain so it could be drawn to the left (away from the door). This placed it near an opening window – the bottom of that window and latch was similar in height to that of the door handle when the curtain was righthanded.
The alternative advanced by the landlord is that the damage was caused by Neo. Photos show some picking on the curtain backing that could be consistent with a cat’s clawing. The photo also shows a larger tear that appears to align with both the door and window latch height. The cause of that is not so obvious.
Having considered both likely scenarios, I consider it more than likely that the some of the damage to the curtain was caused by Neo, the minimal damage indicating entry through the open window as any climbing to exit would have caused greater damage with signs of it lower than here.
I note the tenants’ requested permission for Neo to reside. That was granted. The reason for permission for a pet to reside is the possibility of pet related damage. What is curious is that there is no obvious record of any routine inspection of the curtains during the tenancy, certainty no record of damage as later noted at exit. I consider it more than likely for the damage to have occurred during the main stage of the tenancy and not at the end, given the tenure of Neo’s stay.
Having rightfully required the tenants to seek permission to have a cat, some inspection for possible related damage during the routine inspections might have been expected. Given the lack of scratching of other fixtures or furnishings throughout, it is reasonable to consider Neo not prone to scratching, making the localised damage harder to assign.
So while I find some damage to be more than likely from the cat, this is by the finest of margin and not total. With that I mind I turn to the landlord’s loss.
The premises was near new at commencement, including the curtains. The landlord sought compensation for the estimated cost of replacing that curtain, being $520.00. I note that no basis for the estimate was provided but it appears reasonable on a full replacement cost basis. There has been no replacement curtain obtained or installed. A new tenancy continues today with the curtain in the state as evidenced at the end of the tenancy. Whether there has been subsequent deterioration since is moot but that would need consideration if a depreciated award was to be made.
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
The landlord has not established a financial loss. There is potentially a ground to consider accelerated depreciation but even if I am wrong and this should be applied here, I consider it would be minimal, reflecting the continued usability of the curtain “as is”.
The bond is intended to cover any outstanding rent, damages, or other costs, and if there is disagreement, it is appropriate for the bond to remain with Tenancy Services until the Tribunal resolves the dispute.
The tenants expressed frustration with the extended delay in the return of the bulk, and undisputed amount, of their bond. It is concerning they stated they were previously told the whole bond would be intentionally withheld (by another agent that was not present at the hearing). This is unproven but the frustration and financial distress to the tenants from the lengthy delay in bond recovery is understandable.
Holding the bond in dispute is not, by itself, a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 today and it does not give rise to compensation for the tenant. There are no grounds here for any consideration of the delay in the return of the bond. The application by the landlord was not frivolous, nor without some merit despite the determination here.
When considering claims such as here, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord has experienced a loss due to any tenant careless action or failure that establishes a loss that should be compensated. In reaching this conclusion I have also considered the broader merits and justice of the facts as known.
The application is dismissed. The bond is returned to the tenants. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or 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.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
Given the outcome, I consider it appropriate to order tenant name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423641 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423641 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the curtain as claimed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the curtain as claimed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions