What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5437348 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5437348?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5437348?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13579804-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5437348 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5437348?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5437348?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13579804-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5437348 — Property damage

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by video conference.
The tenants rented these premises from April 2024 until October 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Burden of proof
The burden is on the party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal (in this case the landlord) to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss or consequence they have suffered because of that breach together with the cost to remedy. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The general principle is that tenants are not liable to make good damage to the premises. See section 49A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: scratches to the wooden floor in the main bedroom and the living area. The landlord sought the sum of $1733.57 in compensation being half of the quote provided.
The parties agreed that the premises had wooden floors in two bedrooms, the living and dining area and the hallway.
The landlord provided the following evidence in support of the claim: -three entry inspection photographs, two of the living room floor and one of the main bedroom floor -six exit inspection photographs showing close up photographs of scratch marks on the floor. Two of the photographs were of the same scratch beside the living room door, in the other photographs it was not clear where the claimed marks were located although the landlord pointed out one he stated was in the main bedroom. -a quote dated 24 October 2025 for “Engineering flooring sanding” in the sum of $3447. The landlord advised that the work has not yet been done. -evidence of the landlord’s insurance policy and excess of $1000.00
The tenant accepted that there were some scratch marks to the floor but claimed that these were caused by fair wear and tear at the property and that the floors were old. The tenant stated that they calculated the amount of the damage to be approximately 6-7m2 and claimed that this was only a small proportion of the quote for the entire floor resurfacing.
I have considered the evidence and submissions of both parties and find that the landlord has failed to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons: (a)The landlord could not provide evidence of when the floors were last resurfaced. (b)The entry photographs when zoomed to a similar size as the exit close ups show extensive existing scratch marks in the living area and some marks in the bedroom. (c)I accept that there are some new marks at the end of the tenancy, but they are not extensive and in the context of an older floor with existing marks I find that these are not beyond fair wear and tear. (d)Furthermore, the quote provided is for a full house resurface. Only one quote was provided. The landlord has not completed the work, and it is now more than six months since the tenancy ended. Even if I were satisfied that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear, I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence of the cost of repairing the damage.
The application is dismissed.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. [The landlord/s] has applied for suppression. Although [The landlord/s] has not been successful, I have considered the application for suppression. Having considered the factors in this case including the landlord’s advice that these were very good tenants, and this was the only issue during the tenancy I find that the interests of both parties in particular the tenants outweighs the public interest in their identities being published. The Tribunal orders suppression of all party identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by video conference.

The tenants rented these premises from April 2024 until October 2025.

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

The burden is on the party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal (in this case the landlord) to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss or consequence they have suffered because of that breach together with the cost to remedy. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The general principle is that tenants are not liable to make good damage to the premises. See section 49A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

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.

The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: scratches to the wooden floor in the main bedroom and the living area. The landlord sought the sum of $1733.57 in compensation being half of the quote provided.

The parties agreed that the premises had wooden floors in two bedrooms, the living and dining area and the hallway.

The landlord provided the following evidence in support of the claim: -three entry inspection photographs, two of the living room floor and one of the main bedroom floor -six exit inspection photographs showing close up photographs of scratch marks on the floor. Two of the photographs were of the same scratch beside the living room door, in the other photographs it was not clear where the claimed marks were located although the landlord pointed out one he stated was in the main bedroom. -a quote dated 24 October 2025 for “Engineering flooring sanding” in the sum of $3447. The landlord advised that the work has not yet been done. -evidence of the landlord’s insurance policy and excess of $1000.00

The tenant accepted that there were some scratch marks to the floor but claimed that these were caused by fair wear and tear at the property and that the floors were old. The tenant stated that they calculated the amount of the damage to be approximately 6-7m2 and claimed that this was only a small proportion of the quote for the entire floor resurfacing.

I have considered the evidence and submissions of both parties and find that the landlord has failed to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons: (a)The landlord could not provide evidence of when the floors were last resurfaced. (b)The entry photographs when zoomed to a similar size as the exit close ups show extensive existing scratch marks in the living area and some marks in the bedroom. (c)I accept that there are some new marks at the end of the tenancy, but they are not extensive and in the context of an older floor with existing marks I find that these are not beyond fair wear and tear. (d)Furthermore, the quote provided is for a full house resurface. Only one quote was provided. The landlord has not completed the work, and it is now more than six months since the tenancy ended. Even if I were satisfied that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear, I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence of the cost of repairing the damage.

The application is dismissed.

The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. [The landlord/s] has applied for suppression. Although [The landlord/s] has not been successful, I have considered the application for suppression. Having considered the factors in this case including the landlord’s advice that these were very good tenants, and this was the only issue during the tenancy I find that the interests of both parties in particular the tenants outweighs the public interest in their identities being published. The Tribunal orders suppression of all party identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5437348 — Property damage

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5437348 — Property damage

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

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions