What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5433650 about?

The tribunal order states: Lucy Fitzgibbon must pay A1 Property Managers Limited As The Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5433650?

Cleaning: $85.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $785.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $108.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Driveway: $611.38 awarded to landlord; Paint Exterior: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Tile Edging: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5433650?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5433650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13774997-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5433650 about?

The tribunal order states: Lucy Fitzgibbon must pay A1 Property Managers Limited As The Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5433650?

Cleaning: $85.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $785.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $108.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Driveway: $611.38 awarded to landlord; Paint Exterior: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Tile Edging: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5433650?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5433650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13774997-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

39 Lady Isaac Drive, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5433650 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5433650 — net $2,457.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$108.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$85.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Tile edging	$40.00	ng has however been further damaged by the tenant. The tenant is ordered to pay $40.00.
Repairs: Paint exterior	$800.00	tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $800.00.
Carpet Cleaning: Paint interior	$785.00	tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $785.00.
Repairs: Driveway	$611.38	insurance but was below the excess on the policy. The tenant is ordered to pay $611.38 being the 1/8 th share of the repair costs to the shared driveway.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,457.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,457.38

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy commenced on 20 December 2024 and ended on 29 January 2026.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The burden of proof

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 Tribunal is not required to ascertain the truth, but only to make a finding of whether the party bringing the claim has shown that their version is more likely than not.

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.”

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

The tenant accepted that two minor areas were not left reasonably clean and tidy and that is reflected in the modest invoice for $108.00.

The landlord seeks compensation for lawn mowing and provided photos and an invoice for $92.00 in support of the claim. Having reviewed the photos, I consider that the lawns have been left in a reasonably tidy condition by the tenant and the claim is dismissed.

The amounts ordered are proven.

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. The landlord is insured. The landlord‘s policy of insurance carries an excess of $750.00 on each and every claim.

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 landlord says that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:

Carpet stain. The tenant accepted liability for this damage. The landlord provided photos and an invoice for $85.00 in support of the claim. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Straight tile edging and fix down carpet. The landlord provided photos and an invoice for $86.25. The tenant said that the issue with the edging had existed in part at the commencement of the tenancy as had the issue with the carpet. The tenant said that the edging had been further damaged during the tenancy when she moved her fridge. Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that there was a preexisting issue with both the carpet and tile edging. The edging has however been further damaged by the tenant. The tenant is ordered to pay $40.00.

Exterior painting. The landlord provided photos of both the garage and the exterior of the house where the paint had been damaged. An invoice for $800.00 was provided. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $800.00.

Interior painting. The landlord provided photos of the interior of the house where the paint had been damaged. An invoice for $785.00 was provided. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $785.00.

Roller blind. The landlord seeks compensation for damage to a roller blind. Photos were provided which show cracks in the fabric. The landlord seeks compensation for a replacement of $724.50.

The tenant says that the damage was fair wear and tear as the roller blind covered a sliding door and was used on a daily basis.

The landlord is required to prove on the civil standard that the damage did not occur as a result of fair wear and tear.

Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629,4169403.

In Nixon V Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT216/94,30 January 1996 the District Court held that a tenant would not be liable for fear wear and tear, meaning damage during ordinary use. “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition... Where a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fair wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fear wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.”

The damage is in a high use area. No evidence was provided to show that the damage had been caused by the tenants’ unreasonable conduct

In the Tribunal’s view, the damage has been caused by the tenant as a result of fair wear and tear. The tenant has raised fair wear and tear as a plausible explanation for the damage. In those circumstances, the claim is dismissed.

Right of Way. The premises are on a right of way. The right of way is privately owned. There are five houses sited on the right of way. The evidence of the landlord was that the landlord owned a 1/8 th share of the right of way.

The definition of “premises” in the RTA includes land. The definition of a “tenancy” includes the right to occupy premises in return for rent.

I find that the landlord’s interest in the right of way forms part of the tenanted premises.

The landlord provided a statement from a neighbour. The neighbour said that at approximately 5am on 7 October 2025 as he was leaving for work, he noticed a vehicle parked opposite his house, partially on the right of way and partially on the footpath. The neighbour returned home at approximately 6pm and discovered a large oil spill, approximately 14 metres in length stretching across the right of way and the footpath where the car had previously been parked. The tenant accepted in evidence that the owner of the car was her border and I proceed on that basis.

The landlord provided evidence that the oil had caused the asphalt on the driveway to be substantially damaged.

An invoice for repairs to the driveway of $4891.11 was provided.

The landlord’s insurance policy carries an excess of $750.00. The landlord made a claim under that insurance policy. The insurers have informed the landlord that the maximum they would pay under the terms of the policy would be for the reasonable costs for repair to the landlord’s shared part of the premises. The definition of “shared part” in the insurance policy includes driveways.

The insurers state that based on the information available to them, in regard to the shared driveway, the landlord share of repair costs is calculated to be under the policy excess and therefore the claim is declined. The insurers calculation is based on the landlord’s share being 1/8 th of the repair cost. The total repair cost is $4,891.11.The landlord’s share of the cost is $611.38, which is less than the excess.

The tenant explained there her border had been involved in a car accident on the morning of 7 October 2025. He had managed to drive the car as far as the right of way. It being dark at that hour, the border did not see anything untoward with the vehicle.

Later in the day the oil spill was brought to the boarders attention. The evidence before the Tribunal is such that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the damage to the driveway was caused intentionally. I proceed on the basis that the damage caused was careless.

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. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. In the circumstances as outlined above, the damage was covered under the landlord’s policy of insurance but was below the excess on the policy. The tenant is ordered to pay $611.38 being the 1/8 th share of the repair costs to the shared driveway.

As A1 Property Managers Limited As The Agent For Dehiwalaliganage Chamindnka & Robert Graeme Hutterd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5433650 — net $2,457.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$108.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$85.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Tile edging	$40.00	ng has however been further damaged by the tenant. The tenant is ordered to pay $40.00.
Repairs: Paint exterior	$800.00	tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $800.00.
Carpet Cleaning: Paint interior	$785.00	tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $785.00.
Repairs: Driveway	$611.38	insurance but was below the excess on the policy. The tenant is ordered to pay $611.38 being the 1/8 th share of the repair costs to the shared driveway.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,457.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,457.38