What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426485 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 5426485?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Walls In Study And Garage: $672.75 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $108.62 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426485?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426485?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13453700-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426485 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 5426485?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Walls In Study And Garage: $672.75 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $108.62 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426485?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426485?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13453700-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5426485 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5426485 — net $809.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: November and December 2025	$108.62	Water rates: November and December 2025
Repairs: walls in study and garage	$672.75	Repairs: walls in study and garage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$809.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$809.37

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
Bruce Payne must pay [The landlord/s] $809.37 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The property manager/s], representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The tenant did not join the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing and so did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, outgoings, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 22 December 2025.
The landlord said there was an earlier application 5386187 made relating to rent arrears to the end of the tenancy and refund of the bond. As such, the landlord withdrew their rent arrears claim. Burden of proof and evidence
Any party making a claim must prove the claim on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred. This is the 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.”

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices for November and December 2025, along with a tenant payment history which showed the tenant had not paid these water invoices, which totalled $108.62.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claimed $860.20 for cleaning and $115.00 for rubbish removal at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and also left rubbish such as a dining table, chairs, computer and other items.
The landlord did not provide an Entry Inspection Report, or an Exit Inspection Report or any photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, other than 2 photographs for the wall damage claim dealt with below. The landlord did provide invoices for cleaning and rubbish removals in the amounts of $860.20 and $115.00 respectively.
As the landlord has not provided any additional supporting evidence to show the cleaning or rubbish removal costs that were incurred were required, particularly photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove these claims and so dismiss these claims for cleaning and rubbish removal costs.

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 RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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) RTA.
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) RTA. 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) RTA.
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) RTA.
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. Repairs to walls
The landlord said the tenant damaged a wall in the study and another wall in the garage.
The landlord said there were 2 dents left in the study wall, along with markings on the wall from the tenant’s chair. The landlord provided a photograph of the study wall at the end of the tenancy that shows this damage.
The landlord provided a photograph of the garage wall, which was significantly bent out of shape at the bottom of the wall. The landlord said the tenant said he had driven his car too far forward into the garage wall, thus causing the damage.
Given the photographs of the study wall and garage wall, I find both were likely careless damage on the part of the tenant. As such, the tenant is liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation and considering the cap in section 49B RTA.
The landlord said the study wall was plastered and painted, and the garage wall had to have the gib replaced and then was painted. The landlord claimed $1,035.00 for the repair work for both walls and provided an invoice confirming the amount claimed. I find it likely that about half the repair cost of $1,035.00 would be attributable to painting work, which would come to $517.50.
In determining compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where any item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.
The landlord was not sure when the interior of the property or the garage were last painted. The tenancy began in June 2015 and the property manager estimated the whole property would likely have been painted just before the tenancy began. As such, the property manager estimated the property was last painted around early 2015, more than 10 years ago.
Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. So, the lifespan of the paint on the walls at the property, after a 10-year tenancy, was likely largely exceeded. Nevertheless, I accept there may have been some use left in the paint on the walls and so find that 15% of the cost claimed, which comes to $155.25, is reasonable, given the evidence.
I add the depreciated cost of painting that I find reasonable, given the evidence, of $155.25, and add this to the other half cost of repairs of $517.50 for plastering and gib replacement, that is not subject to depreciation, which comes to $672.75.
The insurance excess is $500.00 and weekly rent was $900.00 so 4 weeks’ rent is $3,600.00. The property manager said that any insurance claim would incur two insurance excess payments ($1,000.00), given the damage was in 2 separate rooms. The amount I consider reasonable for the repairs, which is $672.75 is less than the insurance excess (2 excesses for 2 rooms) and 4 weeks’ rent and so I award the landlord $672.75 for the repairs of both the study and garage walls.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression and is entitled to name suppression because they have been successful with the claims. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5426485 — net $809.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: November and December 2025	$108.62	Water rates: November and December 2025
Repairs: walls in study and garage	$672.75	Repairs: walls in study and garage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$809.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$809.37

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
Bruce Payne must pay [The landlord/s] $809.37 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The property manager/s], representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The tenant did not join the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing and so did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, outgoings, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 22 December 2025.
The landlord said there was an earlier application 5386187 made relating to rent arrears to the end of the tenancy and refund of the bond. As such, the landlord withdrew their rent arrears claim. Burden of proof and evidence
Any party making a claim must prove the claim on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred. This is the 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.”

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices for November and December 2025, along with a tenant payment history which showed the tenant had not paid these water invoices, which totalled $108.62.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claimed $860.20 for cleaning and $115.00 for rubbish removal at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and also left rubbish such as a dining table, chairs, computer and other items.
The landlord did not provide an Entry Inspection Report, or an Exit Inspection Report or any photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, other than 2 photographs for the wall damage claim dealt with below. The landlord did provide invoices for cleaning and rubbish removals in the amounts of $860.20 and $115.00 respectively.
As the landlord has not provided any additional supporting evidence to show the cleaning or rubbish removal costs that were incurred were required, particularly photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove these claims and so dismiss these claims for cleaning and rubbish removal costs.

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 RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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) RTA.
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) RTA. 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) RTA.
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) RTA.
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. Repairs to walls
The landlord said the tenant damaged a wall in the study and another wall in the garage.
The landlord said there were 2 dents left in the study wall, along with markings on the wall from the tenant’s chair. The landlord provided a photograph of the study wall at the end of the tenancy that shows this damage.
The landlord provided a photograph of the garage wall, which was significantly bent out of shape at the bottom of the wall. The landlord said the tenant said he had driven his car too far forward into the garage wall, thus causing the damage.
Given the photographs of the study wall and garage wall, I find both were likely careless damage on the part of the tenant. As such, the tenant is liable for the full repair cost less any depreciation and considering the cap in section 49B RTA.
The landlord said the study wall was plastered and painted, and the garage wall had to have the gib replaced and then was painted. The landlord claimed $1,035.00 for the repair work for both walls and provided an invoice confirming the amount claimed. I find it likely that about half the repair cost of $1,035.00 would be attributable to painting work, which would come to $517.50.
In determining compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where any item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.
The landlord was not sure when the interior of the property or the garage were last painted. The tenancy began in June 2015 and the property manager estimated the whole property would likely have been painted just before the tenancy began. As such, the property manager estimated the property was last painted around early 2015, more than 10 years ago.
Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. So, the lifespan of the paint on the walls at the property, after a 10-year tenancy, was likely largely exceeded. Nevertheless, I accept there may have been some use left in the paint on the walls and so find that 15% of the cost claimed, which comes to $155.25, is reasonable, given the evidence.
I add the depreciated cost of painting that I find reasonable, given the evidence, of $155.25, and add this to the other half cost of repairs of $517.50 for plastering and gib replacement, that is not subject to depreciation, which comes to $672.75.
The insurance excess is $500.00 and weekly rent was $900.00 so 4 weeks’ rent is $3,600.00. The property manager said that any insurance claim would incur two insurance excess payments ($1,000.00), given the damage was in 2 separate rooms. The amount I consider reasonable for the repairs, which is $672.75 is less than the insurance excess (2 excesses for 2 rooms) and 4 weeks’ rent and so I award the landlord $672.75 for the repairs of both the study and garage walls.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression and is entitled to name suppression because they have been successful with the claims. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426485 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426485 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions