Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5436998 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 304, 1817B Great North Road, Avondale,
Decided 19 Jun 2026 · Published 19 Jun 2026 · Application 5436998
- Property damage
Order
- [The party] and [The party] must pay Crockers Property Management Limited, as The Agent For Reshmi Lata, $28.00 immediately, being the filing fee for this application.
- [The party] and [The party] must pay Crockers Property Management Limited As The Agent For Reshmi Lata $1,197.00 from the bond immediately
- The amount to pay is calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Replacement hob incl installation$978.00 Electrician inspection fee$191.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$1,197.00 Bond$1,169.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$28.00
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,169.00 (BN-10106171), that remains at the Bond Centre, to Crockers Property Management Limited as the Agent For Reshmi Lata immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The parties do not dispute that the Smeg glass cooktop was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord discovered the damage after the tenancy ended. The parties’ disagreement relates to the amount the tenants should pay in compensation for the damaged cooktop.
- The landlord’s insurance excess exceeded the cost of a replacement cooktop.
- The owner contracted an electrician after the damage was discovered. The purpose was to check the condition of the hob and determine whether the hob needed to be replaced. The electrician sent the following information to the landlord. Product & Fault: Smeg 60cm Cooktop Fault: Glass smashed in corner 7/1/26 customer paid $191 for inspection. Technician (07/01/2026) - Work Note Inspected the induction cooktop, found the glass top had a shattered induction glass top on the bottom front left edge, removed the glass top and tested electronic boards, tested ok but not able to guarantee due to possible water ingress. Note 1: advised customer not to use the cooktop until they have the glass top replaced. Note 2: not able to guarantee repair - recommend replacing cooktop.
- The cost of that inspection and advice was $191.00.
- The electrician informed the landlord that the hob needed to be replaced.
- The landlord took the electrician’s advice and replaced the cooktop on 15 January before a new tenant moved in on 17 January.
- The Smeg cooktop was less than three years old. Smeg is a higher end brand. The landlord did not replace with like for like but kept the replacement cost to a minimum by buying a Haier brand cooktop. The invoice from Harvey Norman includes the purchase of the cooktop and labour.
- The tenant believes that the landlord should have replaced the glass and that the damaged cooktop should have been given to the tenant to sell for parts. Prior to the hearing the landlord requested an electrician to comment on these points of disagreement. Hi Shamus Just a quick question we need for tenancy tribunal hearing tomorrow. Please see attached cracked stove top, if we replace this stove top, can the old cracked stove top be used for parts or any way to make money back for the tenants that are replacing it? Thanks for your help. Kind regards, Ji Hi Ji No this is an induction oven so no, parts are not interchangeable. You can get a replacement glass top for the existing unit if everything still works, but you are looking at prices starting from $800 upwards for the glass then install, so cheaper to replace with a new unit. Shamus
- I am satisfied that: a. The tenants had opportunity to remedy the damage to the laptop during their tenancy. b. The landlord is not required to give the tenants the opportunity to repair or replace items after the tenancy ends. (The landlord may carry out replacement/repairs and must prove the loss. The landlord must mitigate the loss.) c. The landlord mitigated the loss by replacing the cooktop with a cheaper cooktop of lesser quality. d. The landlord did not have the choice of replacing the glass because she was advised that glass would take two months to import. e. The loss would be greater if the glass had been replaced because the landlord would have not been able to tenant the property on 17 January if the premises did not have a working cooktop. The tenants would be liable for loss of rent from 17 January. f. The cost of replacing glass would not guarantee a lesser cost. g. The damaged cooktop was disposed of before the tenants suggested they would like to receive it. It would not be normal practice for an electrician to keep parts that are potentially unsafe due to possible water damage.
- 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. I am satisfied that the landlord has not been placed in a better position by the installation of a replacement hob. The hob is new however the quality of the hob is less and is more likely to have reliability issues. Filing fee
- Because the landlord has been successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant.