What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427268 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 5427268?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427268?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427268?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13452279-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427268 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 5427268?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427268?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427268?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13452279-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5427268 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Spooner, representing the landlord, and [Tenant 1], representing both tenants, attended the video conference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 30 October 2025. Burden of proof and evidence
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This is called 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.” Compensation – bedroom wall
The landlord claimed compensation of $268.60 for repairing damaged paint they said was caused when the tenants removed a poster from a bedroom wall.
The landlord provided an invoice in the amount of $268.60 for painting the bedroom wall and said this particular bedroom wall was painted before the tenancy began, but not the other rooms.
The parties confirmed the tenancy lasted for around 2 years.
The landlord did not provide any Inspection Reports or photographs but did provide an invoice for the repair work.
The tenant provided evidence, which included a before and after set of pictures of the bedroom wall, that had been sent to them by the landlord, and a timeline of events.
The tenant said the final inspection had gone well and no issues had been raised with them about anything at the property. The property manager confirmed this and said she had not noticed any issues at the time, but the owner had pointed out the paint had been removed from spots on the bedroom wall about two weeks after the tenancy ended.
The tenant said they had received the bond in full without any issues being raised and it was only in December 2025 that they suddenly received an invoice from the landlord asking them to pay for this repair. The tenant said they were asked to pay after the work was completed and had no opportunity to inspect the issue or remedy it. The tenant submitted the patches on the wall were insignificant and amounted to fair wear and tear from a 2-year tenancy.
The landlord said they sent in the bond refund form before the owner noticed the issues with the bedroom wall, and confirmed the new tenants did not move into the property until January 2026. The property manager did not agree that the damage to the wall was fair wear and tear.
However, the property manager acknowledged that, had there been any significant damage to the bedroom wall, she would have noticed this in her final inspection of the property, and would have raised this issue. The tenant pointed out this shows that any damage was insignificant and amounted to wear and tear.
The landlord has provided only the invoice for the repair work and essentially no additional supporting evidence of the claim.
It is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, that the tenant will live in the dwelling, and in the process will cause some wear and tear. As far as walls are concerned, it would be expected there would be some minor damage such as scrapes, marks or even minor holes when hanging pictures or removing posters and the like. That is an incident of people living in the premises, and that damage (wear and tear) is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives.
The tenant’s evidence of the two photographs of the wall, before and after the tenancy, as provided to them by the property manager after the tenancy ended, showed part of a wall with a couple of very small markings. The property manager acknowledged that, had there been any significant damage to the bedroom wall she would have noticed this at the final inspection, but did not. From the evidence provided, particularly the photographs provided by the tenant, the property manager not noticing any damage at the final inspection, which likely means anything on the bedroom wall was insignificant, and a 2-year tenancy, I find the landlord has not proved that any damage to the bedroom wall was likely more than fair wear and tear. Therefore, the compensation claim is dismissed. Filing fee
As the compensation claim is dismissed, it follows that the claim for reimbursement of the filing fee is also dismissed. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression. The tenants requested name suppression. As the landlord’s claims are dismissed, I find the tenants’ interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, the tenants’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Spooner, representing the landlord, and [Tenant 1], representing both tenants, attended the video conference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 30 October 2025. Burden of proof and evidence
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This is called 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.” Compensation – bedroom wall
The landlord claimed compensation of $268.60 for repairing damaged paint they said was caused when the tenants removed a poster from a bedroom wall.
The landlord provided an invoice in the amount of $268.60 for painting the bedroom wall and said this particular bedroom wall was painted before the tenancy began, but not the other rooms.
The parties confirmed the tenancy lasted for around 2 years.
The landlord did not provide any Inspection Reports or photographs but did provide an invoice for the repair work.
The tenant provided evidence, which included a before and after set of pictures of the bedroom wall, that had been sent to them by the landlord, and a timeline of events.
The tenant said the final inspection had gone well and no issues had been raised with them about anything at the property. The property manager confirmed this and said she had not noticed any issues at the time, but the owner had pointed out the paint had been removed from spots on the bedroom wall about two weeks after the tenancy ended.
The tenant said they had received the bond in full without any issues being raised and it was only in December 2025 that they suddenly received an invoice from the landlord asking them to pay for this repair. The tenant said they were asked to pay after the work was completed and had no opportunity to inspect the issue or remedy it. The tenant submitted the patches on the wall were insignificant and amounted to fair wear and tear from a 2-year tenancy.
The landlord said they sent in the bond refund form before the owner noticed the issues with the bedroom wall, and confirmed the new tenants did not move into the property until January 2026. The property manager did not agree that the damage to the wall was fair wear and tear.
However, the property manager acknowledged that, had there been any significant damage to the bedroom wall, she would have noticed this in her final inspection of the property, and would have raised this issue. The tenant pointed out this shows that any damage was insignificant and amounted to wear and tear.
The landlord has provided only the invoice for the repair work and essentially no additional supporting evidence of the claim.
It is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, that the tenant will live in the dwelling, and in the process will cause some wear and tear. As far as walls are concerned, it would be expected there would be some minor damage such as scrapes, marks or even minor holes when hanging pictures or removing posters and the like. That is an incident of people living in the premises, and that damage (wear and tear) is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives.
The tenant’s evidence of the two photographs of the wall, before and after the tenancy, as provided to them by the property manager after the tenancy ended, showed part of a wall with a couple of very small markings. The property manager acknowledged that, had there been any significant damage to the bedroom wall she would have noticed this at the final inspection, but did not. From the evidence provided, particularly the photographs provided by the tenant, the property manager not noticing any damage at the final inspection, which likely means anything on the bedroom wall was insignificant, and a 2-year tenancy, I find the landlord has not proved that any damage to the bedroom wall was likely more than fair wear and tear. Therefore, the compensation claim is dismissed. Filing fee
As the compensation claim is dismissed, it follows that the claim for reimbursement of the filing fee is also dismissed. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression. The tenants requested name suppression. As the landlord’s claims are dismissed, I find the tenants’ interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, the tenants’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427268 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427268 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions