What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436347 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Braziers Limited $1,877.55 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5436347?

Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $538.05 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $87.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $224.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436347?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436347?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13843467-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436347 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Braziers Limited $1,877.55 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5436347?

Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $538.05 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $87.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $224.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436347?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436347?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13843467-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17A Maurice Street, Lincoln, Lincoln 7608 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5436347 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5436347 — net $1,877.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Insurance excess for sleepout/hobby room	$650.00	By consent: Insurance excess for sleepout/hobby room
By consent: Rubbish removal	$87.00	By consent: Rubbish removal
By consent: Repair glass in sleepout/hobby room	$538.05	By consent: Repair glass in sleepout/hobby room
By consent: Insurance excess for bedroom 1	$650.00	By consent: Insurance excess for bedroom 1
By consent: Insurance excess for bedroom 2	$650.00	By consent: Insurance excess for bedroom 1
By consent: Insurance excess for bedroom 3	$650.00	By consent: Insurance excess for bedroom 1
By consent: Insurance excess for bedroom 4	$400.00	By consent: Insurance excess for bedroom 4
Repairs to door in bedroom 2	$224.50	Repairs to door in bedroom 2
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,877.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,877.55

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Braziers Limited $1,877.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (5162575-014) to Braziers Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 2 July 2026. Nicola Roundhill appeared on behalf of the landlord.
The tenancy ended on 12 November 2025 and the landlord seeks compensation for repairs. At the hearing, the tenant accepted most of the landlord’s claims. This decision only discusses the contentious matters.
For completeness, I note that the landlord withdrew the following claims at the hearing: a. Insurance excess of $650.00 for bedroom 5. b. Insurance excess of $650.00 for the lounge/dining room. c. Compensation of $224.50 for the door in bedroom 4. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred at the premises during the tenancy? The law
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. 1
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. 2
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. 3
Careless damage is caused by a lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. It can also be defined as heedless, thoughtless, and can cover a situation of inadvertent lack of care. The standard of care is the standard of an ordinary careful person. An ordinary careful person is not expected to take precautions 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 2 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 3 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. against every foreseeable risk, but only against those risks that are reasonably likely to happen. 4 Kitchen benchtop
The landlord claims the tiles on the kitchen benchtop were cracked and damaged during the tenancy. The location of the damaged tiles is the left-hand side of the oven. They also claim the laminate on the benchtop was damaged around the front, left-hand side of the sink. Further, they claim that the laminate was damaged and lifting in other areas of the benchtop.
The tenant claims all of the damage to the kitchen benchtop existed at the beginning of the tenancy and was not caused by them.
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. None of the photographs taken at the beginning show the areas of the kitchen benchtop which the landlord claims were damaged at the end. This means I am unable to compare the two sets of photographs to determine whether the damage occurred during the tenancy or was pre-existing. The tenant denies damaging the benchtop and the landlord has not submitted sufficient evidence to convince me, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage occurred during the tenancy. For this reason, this claim is dismissed. Bedroom door
The landlord submitted photographs of the door in the bedroom at the beginning of the tenancy. No obvious damage is apparent. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end show the door handle has been removed and there is a large dent in the door.
The tenant accepts that the door was damaged during the tenancy, but says they should not have to pay for repairs. This is because the tenant claims all of the internal doors had locks and the landlord did not provide them with keys. The tenant has young children, one of whom is high needs. The tenant claims this child locked themselves in one of the bedrooms one day and was injuring themselves. To protect their child, the tenant broke into the bedroom by forcing the door open, which caused a large dent. Thereafter, the tenant removed the door handle and lock permanently.
I find the door in the bedroom was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear. I find the damage was caused intentionally by the tenant, because they purposefully kicked the door in to get inside the bedroom however, I agree with their submission that they should not pay for the repairs. 4 Landlord v Tenant [2021] NZTT 4298321 at [22] citing Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850. The tenant submitted copies of emails sent to the landlord raising their concern about the fact that the internal doors had locks and the tenant did not have keys. They expressed that this was a safety concern to them with young children. For example, in an email sent to the landlord on 9 July 2020, the tenant said: ... -all of the children’s rooms have locks on the that if there were a safety hazard, and they had locked the door, I would not be able to access the room, is it possible to remove the locks off the children’s bedroom doors or have working keys.
On 20 November 2020, the tenant sent the landlord another email stating: ... I hate to be an annoyance, but the door knobs have been a very high health and safety concern for me, I’m hoping these issues can be addressed.
The landlord does not appear to have responded to the tenant’s concerns. As a result, the tenant’s fear about what might potentially happen with one of their young children locking themselves in a bedroom, in fact happened. I find that the landlord’s inaction contributed to the circumstances that required the tenant to break down the door.
Even though the tenant is, strictly speaking, responsible for damaging the door in the bedroom, I do not think it is fair or reasonable to require them to pay for the repairs in these circumstances. The Tribunal must determine disputes according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case. It is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights, obligations, legal forms or technicalities. 5 I consider the substantial merits and justice of the case lean in favour of not requiring the tenant to pay the repair costs.
For these reasons, this claim is dismissed. Bedroom 2 door
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the door in bedroom 2 is cracked, dented and missing a handle. The tenant accepts the damage occurred during the tenancy and claims it happened when they were moving a duchess into the bedroom. They claim that the door fell off its hinges and slammed into the duchess. They claim that their friend’s husband is a builder and put the door back on, but advised that the hinges were table hinges, not door hinges. 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 85(2).
I find the door was damaged during the tenancy and the damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven that they did not intentionally or carelessly cause the damage.
No evidence from the builder was provided. This means I am not convinced, on the balance of probabilities, that the door had the incorrect hinges on it and that this contributed to it falling down. On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant most likely hit the door when they were trying to move a large piece of furniture into the premises. I find the damage to have been caused by carelessness.
The landlord submitted a quote for $898.03 (including GST) to replace four internal doors. They claim they have incurred this cost and paid out on the quote, but did not have an invoice. I accept the landlord’s evidence.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the door in bedroom 2 is granted for $224.50. Bathroom door
The photographs at the end of the tenancy show the door in the bathroom has a dent in it and black tape over the latch. The tenant claims the damage was pre- existing and the landlord did not submit any photographs of the door taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The lack of photographs of the door taken at the beginning of the tenancy, means I am unable to compare the photographs of the door taken at the end to determine whether the damage occurred during the tenancy or was pre-existing. For this reason, the landlord has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed.
All of 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. Filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful with their application. Therefore, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5436347 — net $1,877.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Insurance excess for sleepout/hobby room	$650.00	By consent: Insurance excess for sleepout/hobby room
By consent: Rubbish removal	$87.00	By consent: Rubbish removal
By consent: Repair glass in sleepout/hobby room	$538.05	By consent: Repair glass in sleepout/hobby room
By consent: Insurance excess for bedroom 1	$650.00	By consent: Insurance excess for bedroom 1
By consent: Insurance excess for bedroom 2	$650.00	By consent: Insurance excess for bedroom 1
By consent: Insurance excess for bedroom 3	$650.00	By consent: Insurance excess for bedroom 1
By consent: Insurance excess for bedroom 4	$400.00	By consent: Insurance excess for bedroom 4
Repairs to door in bedroom 2	$224.50	Repairs to door in bedroom 2
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,877.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,877.55

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Braziers Limited $1,877.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (5162575-014) to Braziers Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 2 July 2026. Nicola Roundhill appeared on behalf of the landlord.
The tenancy ended on 12 November 2025 and the landlord seeks compensation for repairs. At the hearing, the tenant accepted most of the landlord’s claims. This decision only discusses the contentious matters.
For completeness, I note that the landlord withdrew the following claims at the hearing: a. Insurance excess of $650.00 for bedroom 5. b. Insurance excess of $650.00 for the lounge/dining room. c. Compensation of $224.50 for the door in bedroom 4. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred at the premises during the tenancy? The law
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. 1
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. 2
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. 3
Careless damage is caused by a lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. It can also be defined as heedless, thoughtless, and can cover a situation of inadvertent lack of care. The standard of care is the standard of an ordinary careful person. An ordinary careful person is not expected to take precautions 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 2 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 3 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. against every foreseeable risk, but only against those risks that are reasonably likely to happen. 4 Kitchen benchtop
The landlord claims the tiles on the kitchen benchtop were cracked and damaged during the tenancy. The location of the damaged tiles is the left-hand side of the oven. They also claim the laminate on the benchtop was damaged around the front, left-hand side of the sink. Further, they claim that the laminate was damaged and lifting in other areas of the benchtop.
The tenant claims all of the damage to the kitchen benchtop existed at the beginning of the tenancy and was not caused by them.
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. None of the photographs taken at the beginning show the areas of the kitchen benchtop which the landlord claims were damaged at the end. This means I am unable to compare the two sets of photographs to determine whether the damage occurred during the tenancy or was pre-existing. The tenant denies damaging the benchtop and the landlord has not submitted sufficient evidence to convince me, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage occurred during the tenancy. For this reason, this claim is dismissed. Bedroom door
The landlord submitted photographs of the door in the bedroom at the beginning of the tenancy. No obvious damage is apparent. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end show the door handle has been removed and there is a large dent in the door.
The tenant accepts that the door was damaged during the tenancy, but says they should not have to pay for repairs. This is because the tenant claims all of the internal doors had locks and the landlord did not provide them with keys. The tenant has young children, one of whom is high needs. The tenant claims this child locked themselves in one of the bedrooms one day and was injuring themselves. To protect their child, the tenant broke into the bedroom by forcing the door open, which caused a large dent. Thereafter, the tenant removed the door handle and lock permanently.
I find the door in the bedroom was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear. I find the damage was caused intentionally by the tenant, because they purposefully kicked the door in to get inside the bedroom however, I agree with their submission that they should not pay for the repairs. 4 Landlord v Tenant [2021] NZTT 4298321 at [22] citing Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850. The tenant submitted copies of emails sent to the landlord raising their concern about the fact that the internal doors had locks and the tenant did not have keys. They expressed that this was a safety concern to them with young children. For example, in an email sent to the landlord on 9 July 2020, the tenant said: ... -all of the children’s rooms have locks on the that if there were a safety hazard, and they had locked the door, I would not be able to access the room, is it possible to remove the locks off the children’s bedroom doors or have working keys.
On 20 November 2020, the tenant sent the landlord another email stating: ... I hate to be an annoyance, but the door knobs have been a very high health and safety concern for me, I’m hoping these issues can be addressed.
The landlord does not appear to have responded to the tenant’s concerns. As a result, the tenant’s fear about what might potentially happen with one of their young children locking themselves in a bedroom, in fact happened. I find that the landlord’s inaction contributed to the circumstances that required the tenant to break down the door.
Even though the tenant is, strictly speaking, responsible for damaging the door in the bedroom, I do not think it is fair or reasonable to require them to pay for the repairs in these circumstances. The Tribunal must determine disputes according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case. It is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights, obligations, legal forms or technicalities. 5 I consider the substantial merits and justice of the case lean in favour of not requiring the tenant to pay the repair costs.
For these reasons, this claim is dismissed. Bedroom 2 door
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the door in bedroom 2 is cracked, dented and missing a handle. The tenant accepts the damage occurred during the tenancy and claims it happened when they were moving a duchess into the bedroom. They claim that the door fell off its hinges and slammed into the duchess. They claim that their friend’s husband is a builder and put the door back on, but advised that the hinges were table hinges, not door hinges. 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 85(2).
I find the door was damaged during the tenancy and the damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenant has not proven that they did not intentionally or carelessly cause the damage.
No evidence from the builder was provided. This means I am not convinced, on the balance of probabilities, that the door had the incorrect hinges on it and that this contributed to it falling down. On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant most likely hit the door when they were trying to move a large piece of furniture into the premises. I find the damage to have been caused by carelessness.
The landlord submitted a quote for $898.03 (including GST) to replace four internal doors. They claim they have incurred this cost and paid out on the quote, but did not have an invoice. I accept the landlord’s evidence.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the door in bedroom 2 is granted for $224.50. Bathroom door
The photographs at the end of the tenancy show the door in the bathroom has a dent in it and black tape over the latch. The tenant claims the damage was pre- existing and the landlord did not submit any photographs of the door taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The lack of photographs of the door taken at the beginning of the tenancy, means I am unable to compare the photographs of the door taken at the end to determine whether the damage occurred during the tenancy or was pre-existing. For this reason, the landlord has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed.
All of 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. Filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful with their application. Therefore, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436347 — Property damage at 17A Maurice Street, Lincoln, Lincoln 7608

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436347 — Property damage at 17A Maurice Street, Lincoln, Lincoln 7608

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions