What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439553 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5439553?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin To Remove Couch: $317.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $118.34 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439553?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13642391-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439553 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5439553?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin To Remove Couch: $317.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $118.34 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439553?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13642391-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

77 Hill Road, Hillpark, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5439553 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5439553 — net $1,113.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Window repairs: 1/2 costs	$150.00	Window repairs: 1/2 costs
Skip bin to remove couch	$317.00	Skip bin to remove couch
Water rates	$118.34	Water rates
Insurance excess - garage	$500.00	Insurance excess - garage
Net award	$1,113.34
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,113.34

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1113.34 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $613.34 [The tenant/s]: $2,106.66
The landlords claim for insurance excess on the kitchen bench and bedroom floor are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, water bills, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This was a tenancy that commenced on 28 June 2021 and ended on 1 December 2025 after the tenants gave notice.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 1 December 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount of $118.34 owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants do not dispute the water bills.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the water bills.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii) -(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy but did not remove all an old blue couch from the garage. There were a few other items left in the garage that had to be removed.
The landlord provided photos for the Tribunal and the tenants accept they did leave a few items around at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided an invoice for $317.00 for a skip bin hired to remove the items.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven his claim for the skip bin.

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 claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Garage door was damaged. -There was a hole in the bedroom floor. -Kitchen bench had two marks on it. -Glass panes in the garage and house were broken.
The landlord seeks the insurance excess to be paid for by the tenants on all three claims, kitchen bench, garage, bedroom floor. The total of $2500.00 in excess. Glass repairs:
The tenants accept that they were responsible for the broken glass in the house but not the garage. The landlord checked the pre-let inspection report which confirmed that at least one window in the garage was cracked at the start of the tenancy.
Given this I am not certain that the damage to the garage was the responsibility of the tenants. Therefore, I am halving the invoice provided by the landlord. The tenant should pay $150.00 for damage to the windows. Garage door:
The tenants say that during the tenancy the neighbours damaged their garage door. The tenants did not advise the landlord of the damages.
The landlord had provided photos that clearly show the damage to the garage door. The tenants acknowledge the damage has occurred in their tenancy.
The landlord has provided documentation confirming that the landlord was paid out by insurance for the replacement garage door. The garage door has been replaced. The landlord seeks the cost of the excess of $500.00 for the damage.
Given that the damage occurred during the tenancy and the tenants did not advise the landlord of the damage, it is appropriate that they do pay the excess of $500.00 towards the replacement garage door. Kitchen bench top:
The tenants say they accidentally put a hot item onto the kitchen bench top and that caused the two small marks on the bench top.
This is a very old property built in 1920. It is not well maintained and has been found to be noncompliant regarding Healthy Homes Standards. There are clearly significant subsidence issues with the property that have created problems for the tenants living in the property. This is confirmed in the Healthy Homes Report that was paid for by the tenants.
While there is no tenant cross application and so I cannot address those issues, it is still relevant to my considerations.
The landlord claimed on insurance and was paid out sums of money to do the repairs. The landlord did not advise whether the property had been relet or whether remedial work was being carried out first. The tenant directed me to [The website], and I found the property is advertised for rent starting June 2026.
The landlord confirmed that the garage door, glazing, and bedroom floor has been fixed. It was not confirmed whether the kitchen bench has been fixed. Proof of Repair
The landlord must provide evidence that the repairs were actually carried out and what they cost. If the landlord was paid out by insurance but did not repair the damage, they cannot claim the excess from the tenant.
I have no proof that the landlord has actually carried out the repair to the kitchen bench top. [The website] photos online at this time, show that the marks appear to still be present which would indicate that the work has not been done.
Without proof that the kitchen bench was repaired I cannot award any excess payment to the landlord. The claim for $1000.00 excess for the kitchen bench is dismissed. Bedroom floor:
The landlord claims that the tenants bed legs caused the hole in the wooden floor. The photos show a significant dent /indentation in the wooden flooring. The tenants claim that the floor was rotten and that is why the floor had the hole/indentation in it. The rest of the wooden flooring appears to be in good condition; however, I note the piece used to repair the flooring was much bigger than the actual hole/indentation.
The tenants have provided another view of the indentation, and it does appear that the flooring was crumbly. I cannot assess whether this was damage or wear and tear from the information provided.
This is because of the unmaintained condition of the property and the identifiable issues.
I cannot be satisfied that the floor was damaged by the tenants during the tenancy. The claim for excess on the wooden flooring is dismissed. Bond/suppression/filing fee:
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Bond centre is to refund the bond to the parties as set out above in this Order.
The landlord and tenant both seek suppression of their names and details. Under section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal must order name suppression for a party who has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings, unless publication is in the public interest or otherwise justified.
In this case, the landlord has been partially successful and so I am granting suppression. While I acknowledge the landlord claims against the tenants, the claims were minor and do not reflect on the tenants’ overall conduct.
The landlord has acknowledged that the tenants were good tenants. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to order suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details, as publication would be disproportionate and could unfairly affect their reputation given the minor nature of the claims and their otherwise good tenancy record.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5439553 — net $1,113.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Window repairs: 1/2 costs	$150.00	Window repairs: 1/2 costs
Skip bin to remove couch	$317.00	Skip bin to remove couch
Water rates	$118.34	Water rates
Insurance excess - garage	$500.00	Insurance excess - garage
Net award	$1,113.34
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,113.34

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1113.34 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $613.34 [The tenant/s]: $2,106.66
The landlords claim for insurance excess on the kitchen bench and bedroom floor are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, water bills, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This was a tenancy that commenced on 28 June 2021 and ended on 1 December 2025 after the tenants gave notice.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 1 December 2025. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount of $118.34 owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants do not dispute the water bills.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the water bills.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii) -(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy but did not remove all an old blue couch from the garage. There were a few other items left in the garage that had to be removed.
The landlord provided photos for the Tribunal and the tenants accept they did leave a few items around at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided an invoice for $317.00 for a skip bin hired to remove the items.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven his claim for the skip bin.

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 claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Garage door was damaged. -There was a hole in the bedroom floor. -Kitchen bench had two marks on it. -Glass panes in the garage and house were broken.
The landlord seeks the insurance excess to be paid for by the tenants on all three claims, kitchen bench, garage, bedroom floor. The total of $2500.00 in excess. Glass repairs:
The tenants accept that they were responsible for the broken glass in the house but not the garage. The landlord checked the pre-let inspection report which confirmed that at least one window in the garage was cracked at the start of the tenancy.
Given this I am not certain that the damage to the garage was the responsibility of the tenants. Therefore, I am halving the invoice provided by the landlord. The tenant should pay $150.00 for damage to the windows. Garage door:
The tenants say that during the tenancy the neighbours damaged their garage door. The tenants did not advise the landlord of the damages.
The landlord had provided photos that clearly show the damage to the garage door. The tenants acknowledge the damage has occurred in their tenancy.
The landlord has provided documentation confirming that the landlord was paid out by insurance for the replacement garage door. The garage door has been replaced. The landlord seeks the cost of the excess of $500.00 for the damage.
Given that the damage occurred during the tenancy and the tenants did not advise the landlord of the damage, it is appropriate that they do pay the excess of $500.00 towards the replacement garage door. Kitchen bench top:
The tenants say they accidentally put a hot item onto the kitchen bench top and that caused the two small marks on the bench top.
This is a very old property built in 1920. It is not well maintained and has been found to be noncompliant regarding Healthy Homes Standards. There are clearly significant subsidence issues with the property that have created problems for the tenants living in the property. This is confirmed in the Healthy Homes Report that was paid for by the tenants.
While there is no tenant cross application and so I cannot address those issues, it is still relevant to my considerations.
The landlord claimed on insurance and was paid out sums of money to do the repairs. The landlord did not advise whether the property had been relet or whether remedial work was being carried out first. The tenant directed me to [The website], and I found the property is advertised for rent starting June 2026.
The landlord confirmed that the garage door, glazing, and bedroom floor has been fixed. It was not confirmed whether the kitchen bench has been fixed. Proof of Repair
The landlord must provide evidence that the repairs were actually carried out and what they cost. If the landlord was paid out by insurance but did not repair the damage, they cannot claim the excess from the tenant.
I have no proof that the landlord has actually carried out the repair to the kitchen bench top. [The website] photos online at this time, show that the marks appear to still be present which would indicate that the work has not been done.
Without proof that the kitchen bench was repaired I cannot award any excess payment to the landlord. The claim for $1000.00 excess for the kitchen bench is dismissed. Bedroom floor:
The landlord claims that the tenants bed legs caused the hole in the wooden floor. The photos show a significant dent /indentation in the wooden flooring. The tenants claim that the floor was rotten and that is why the floor had the hole/indentation in it. The rest of the wooden flooring appears to be in good condition; however, I note the piece used to repair the flooring was much bigger than the actual hole/indentation.
The tenants have provided another view of the indentation, and it does appear that the flooring was crumbly. I cannot assess whether this was damage or wear and tear from the information provided.
This is because of the unmaintained condition of the property and the identifiable issues.
I cannot be satisfied that the floor was damaged by the tenants during the tenancy. The claim for excess on the wooden flooring is dismissed. Bond/suppression/filing fee:
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Bond centre is to refund the bond to the parties as set out above in this Order.
The landlord and tenant both seek suppression of their names and details. Under section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal must order name suppression for a party who has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings, unless publication is in the public interest or otherwise justified.
In this case, the landlord has been partially successful and so I am granting suppression. While I acknowledge the landlord claims against the tenants, the claims were minor and do not reflect on the tenants’ overall conduct.
The landlord has acknowledged that the tenants were good tenants. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to order suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details, as publication would be disproportionate and could unfairly affect their reputation given the minor nature of the claims and their otherwise good tenancy record.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439553 — Property damage at 77 Hill Road, Hillpark, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439553 — Property damage at 77 Hill Road, Hillpark, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions