What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427286 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Rempstone Property Management Limited $420.71 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5427286?

Rent Arrears: $75.71 awarded to landlord; Dents & Touchups: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427286?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427286?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14013068-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427286 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Rempstone Property Management Limited $420.71 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5427286?

Rent Arrears: $75.71 awarded to landlord; Dents & Touchups: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427286?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427286?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14013068-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 412 Memorial Avenue, Burnside, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5427286 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5427286 — net $420.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 November 2025 by consent	$75.71	Rent arrears to 10 November 2025 by consent
Repairs: Dents & touchups	$345.00	Repairs: Dents & touchups
Net award	$420.71
Bond	$420.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$420.71

Both parties attended the hearing. A mandarin interpreter attended to assist the Tenant.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond,

At the hearing, the Tenant agreed to pay the Landlord the amount claimed for rent arrears.

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.

The following damage was identified at the end of the tenancy: dents to the wall in Bedroom 3 and a paint mark on the bathroom door. The Landlord submitted that the damage occurred during the tenancy and provided photographs of the damage, together with the ingoing and outgoing inspection reports. They also provided an invoice to repair the damage. Although the photographs in the ingoing and outgoing inspection reports were not taken from identical angles, the Landlord submitted that the absence of any reference to this damage in the ingoing inspection report indicated that it was not present at the commencement of the tenancy.

The Tenant disputed liability and submitted that the damage was pre-existing. The Tenant also submitted that the Landlord had not provided like-for-like photographs of the relevant areas at the commencement and conclusion of the tenancy, making a direct comparison of their condition difficult.

In considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the Landlord’s outgoing inspection photographs establish that the dents to the wall in Bedroom 3 and the paint mark on the bathroom door were present at the end of the tenancy. I accept the Landlord’s submission that, had this damage been present at the commencement of the tenancy, it would reasonably have been expected to be recorded in the ingoing inspection report. This is particularly so given that the ingoing inspection report expressly records other damage to the walls, including peeling and cracks, but makes no reference to the dents in Bedroom 3 or the paint mark on the bathroom door.

The Tenant submitted that there was extensive damage throughout the property at the commencement of the tenancy and that it was not realistic to expect every item of damage to have been identified or reported. The Tenant also submitted that, as a builder, if he had caused the damage, he would have repaired it himself, as it would have been relatively straightforward to do so. I do not find these submissions persuasive. The Tenant did not report the damage to the Landlord during the tenancy, despite his obligation to notify the Landlord of damage occurring during the tenancy. Nor does the Tenant’s occupation or experience as a builder establish, in itself, that the damage was pre-existing.

I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. On the balance of probabilities, the Tenant has not established that the damage was pre-existing or otherwise rebutted the Landlord’s evidence that it occurred during the tenancy. I therefore find the Tenant liable for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

As the Tenant has not been successful, name suppression is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5427286 — net $420.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 November 2025 by consent	$75.71	Rent arrears to 10 November 2025 by consent
Repairs: Dents & touchups	$345.00	Repairs: Dents & touchups
Net award	$420.71
Bond	$420.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$420.71

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Rempstone Property Management Limited $420.71 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $420.71 to Rempstone Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A mandarin interpreter attended to assist the Tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond,
At the hearing, the Tenant agreed to pay the Landlord the amount claimed for rent arrears.

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.
The following damage was identified at the end of the tenancy: dents to the wall in Bedroom 3 and a paint mark on the bathroom door. The Landlord submitted that the damage occurred during the tenancy and provided photographs of the damage, together with the ingoing and outgoing inspection reports. They also provided an invoice to repair the damage. Although the photographs in the ingoing and outgoing inspection reports were not taken from identical angles, the Landlord submitted that the absence of any reference to this damage in the ingoing inspection report indicated that it was not present at the commencement of the tenancy.
The Tenant disputed liability and submitted that the damage was pre-existing. The Tenant also submitted that the Landlord had not provided like-for-like photographs of the relevant areas at the commencement and conclusion of the tenancy, making a direct comparison of their condition difficult.
In considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the Landlord’s outgoing inspection photographs establish that the dents to the wall in Bedroom 3 and the paint mark on the bathroom door were present at the end of the tenancy. I accept the Landlord’s submission that, had this damage been present at the commencement of the tenancy, it would reasonably have been expected to be recorded in the ingoing inspection report. This is particularly so given that the ingoing inspection report expressly records other damage to the walls, including peeling and cracks, but makes no reference to the dents in Bedroom 3 or the paint mark on the bathroom door.
The Tenant submitted that there was extensive damage throughout the property at the commencement of the tenancy and that it was not realistic to expect every item of damage to have been identified or reported. The Tenant also submitted that, as a builder, if he had caused the damage, he would have repaired it himself, as it would have been relatively straightforward to do so. I do not find these submissions persuasive. The Tenant did not report the damage to the Landlord during the tenancy, despite his obligation to notify the Landlord of damage occurring during the tenancy. Nor does the Tenant’s occupation or experience as a builder establish, in itself, that the damage was pre-existing.
I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. On the balance of probabilities, the Tenant has not established that the damage was pre-existing or otherwise rebutted the Landlord’s evidence that it occurred during the tenancy. I therefore find the Tenant liable for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
As the Tenant has not been successful, name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427286 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 412 Memorial Avenue, Burnside, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427286 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 412 Memorial Avenue, Burnside, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.