What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5434949 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond balance of $400.00 (BN-

How much money was awarded in case 5434949?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5434949?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5434949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13686891-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5434949 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond balance of $400.00 (BN-

How much money was awarded in case 5434949?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5434949?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5434949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13686891-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

133 Kaiwara Street, Hoon Hay, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5434949 — Property damage

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond balance of $400.00 (BN- 10069963) to Manuela Schmid, immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Schmid, the tenant, and Ms Staines, representing the landlord, both attended the video conference hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.
The landlord has cross applied for outgoings, which were actually compensation claims, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 21 December 2025.
The parties agreed before the hearing that $400.00 was to be withheld from the bond, with the balance agreed to be released to the tenant, pending the determination of the landlord’s claims for compensation. 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.
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.”
Where parties dispute a claim, the party seeking to prove the claim must provide additional supporting evidence of their position.

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 landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The drapes in the dining room had pulls in them. b. There were carpet stains in the master bedroom. c. There were paint repairs required in the stairwell and in the downstairs bedroom 2. Drapes
The landlord provided some photographs, most of which were taken at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said there were two photographs of one part of the drapes in the dining room at the start of the tenancy. The landlord also provided a written table, which was a property checklist taken at the start of the tenancy. The landlord said there was a lack of entry photographs as the tenancy started during the Covid pandemic.
The landlord did not provide any invoices, receipts or quotes to prove the amounts of any of the claims.
The landlord pointed to two photographs taken at the start of the tenancy, with a corresponding two photographs of the same part of the drapes at the end of the tenancy. Both sets of photographs showed very slight pulls at the bottom of the curtains. The landlord provided two other photographs, taken only at the end of the tenancy, that they said was a different part of the drapes in the dining room, also showing some pulls in the curtains.
The landlord’s property checklist from the start of the tenancy in relation to the dining room showed there were a “couple of minor pulls” in the curtains in the dining room at the start of the tenancy.
The entry and exit set of photographs of the bottom of the drapes showed very minimal pulling, with the exit set of photographs showing what could be considered slight fair wear and tear after a 4-year tenancy such as this one. The photographs of the drapes that have entry and exit photographs show hardly any damage. I consider this is de minimis, or extremely minor, from the photographs.
The landlord only provided the exit photographs of the other part of the curtains with pulls in the curtains where the pulls are more visible.
The tenant said that neither she nor the landlord were aware of any issues with the drapes at the final inspection time and this was not brought up by the landlord until some time later. She said she had a cat and maybe the cat had touched the drapes, but she considered it fair wear and tear after her 4-year tenancy.
The landlord claimed $100.00 for the pulling on the dining room drapes but did not provide any invoice or quote for the cost of repair, nor was any evidence provided about whether these drapes were repaired or replaced. As the landlord has not provided any invoice or quote, they have provided insufficient evidence to prove the cost of the claim and so I dismiss this claim. Carpet stains – master bedroom
The landlord said the tenant stained the carpet in the master bedroom and provided photographs of the master bedroom carpet at the end of the tenancy, which showed about 3 stains. The landlord did not provide any entry photographs of the condition of the master bedroom carpet at the start of the tenancy, however.
The tenant said she did not know about any carpet stains until later as she did not notice any stains. She indicated she had a professional carpet cleaner come in to clean the carpets before she left, and he did not mention any stains to her either. The tenant said she did what she could to leave the carpet in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said they had not done anything about the stains in the master bedroom carpet as they were awaiting the outcome of this application. The landlord confirmed that new tenants have already moved into the property.
The landlord did not provide any entry photographs of the condition of the master bedroom carpet, nor did they provide any invoice or quote to clean, repair or replace the carpet.
The landlord claimed $200.00, which they said was a depreciated amount, given the insurance excess was $550.00 and the carpet was new on entry in 2021. Despite this, the landlord is required to prove the cost of any repair or replacement, before considering depreciation, which the landlord has not done here.
As the landlord has not provided any entry photographs of the master bedroom carpet to compare and assess the likelihood of the tenant causing the stains, nor did the landlord provide any invoice or quote to clean, repair or replace the carpet in the master bedroom, nor has this carpet been repaired or replaced, even though there are new tenants in the property, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim. Paint repairs
The landlord said the tenant repaired areas on the stairwell with her own paint and did not do the job properly and also left a paint chip in the downstairs bedroom 2. The landlord provided some photographs of the wall in the stairwell at the end of the tenancy and one photograph of a paint chip in the downstairs bedroom. The landlord did not provide any entry photographs of the condition of these walls at the start of the tenancy, nor did the landlord provide any invoices or receipts or quotes for the cost of painting these walls.
The landlord indicated the owner had had a painter go into the property to paint other areas and so arranged for the painter to cover over and repair these areas. The landlord did not provide any invoice from the owner’s painter for this work, however.
The tenant said she carried out some painting repairs where there had been pictures on the wall or where the walls were damaged and had used the paint that was already in the house, so was the same colour as the paint already on the walls. The tenant explained that the landlord had asked them to return to remove a picture hook in the downstairs bedroom, which they had, but then had asked her to vacate so she was not able to get back into the property to paint over where the hook had been removed.
The photograph of the small patch where a picture hook had been removed shows a very minimal area, clearly where a small picture hook had been removed. I consider this damage de minimis, or very minor, and in line with fair wear and tear in a property after a 4-year tenancy.
As there were no photographs of the stairwell wall at the start of the tenancy, and as the landlord did not provide any invoice, receipt or quote for the paint work on the stairwell, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim. Filing fee
As the landlord’s claims are dismissed, I do not reimburse the filing fee to the landlord. Refund of the bond
As the landlord’s claims are dismissed, the remaining bond held of $400.00 reverts to the tenant.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond balance of $400.00 (BN- 10069963) to Manuela Schmid, immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5434949 — Property damage at 133 Kaiwara Street, Hoon Hay, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5434949 — Property damage at 133 Kaiwara Street, Hoon Hay, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions