What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452340 about?

The tribunal order states: Simi Mele Thomas and Nirmal Thomas Zachariah must pay Whittle Knight &

How much money was awarded in case 5452340?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $40.50 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Sensor Lights: $46.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452340?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452340?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13822466-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452340 about?

The tribunal order states: Simi Mele Thomas and Nirmal Thomas Zachariah must pay Whittle Knight &

How much money was awarded in case 5452340?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $40.50 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Sensor Lights: $46.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452340?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452340?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13822466-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 54 Tilford Street, Woolston, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5452340 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5452340 — net $1,365.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$40.50	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: sensor lights	$46.84	Repairs: sensor lights
Repairs: painting	$1,250.00	Repairs: painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,365.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,365.34

Order

Simi Mele Thomas and Nirmal Thomas Zachariah must pay Whittle Knight & Boatwood Estate Agents Limited As Agents For William Patrick Carroll $1,365.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920 (5250021-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Whittle Knight & Boatwood Estate Agents Limited As Agents For William Patrick Carroll: $1,365.34 Simi Mele Thomas and Nirmal Thomas Zachariah: $554.66

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 18 January 2026.
The tenants dispute that they are liable for all of the items claimed.
The tenants agree to pay $40.50 for lawn repair and $46.84 for repair of broken sensor lights.
The matter in dispute is an invoice for $1,948.10 for patching and painting on walls in the dining room, two bedrooms, sunroom, toilet and lounge.

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 tenants took over a fixed-term lease under an assignment of lease on 5 September 2023. The original lease had started on 7 January 2023. At the start of that tenancy, walls had been freshly painted.
In September, the landlord provided the tenants with a copy of the original entry inspection report. No new inspection was undertaken in September 2023.
These tenants continued to live at the premises from September 2023 to January 2026.
The landlord filed an email that had been sent to the tenants following the end of the tenancy. It was explained that the insurers had said that an excess of $550 would be charged for each room, making a total of $2,750.
In another email dated 20 January, the tenant had said that she could understand the landlord’s concern, especially the bedroom and dining area. She said that the sunroom paint and the toilet wall hole were an issue when they moved in.
The landlord provided photographs which show: a. A small hole in the toilet wall caused by the door knob; b. Paint scratches on an outside corner in the lounge c. Discolouration and a lumpy area on the wall in the master bedroom where there had been no head board, and a small area of paint missing; d. Multiple scratches of paint on the lower wall and skirting board in the dining area; e. A small gouge and paint lifting in the sunroom; f. A line of scratches and paint lifting in the lounge. Toilet wall
There is no dispute that the hole has been caused by the door handle hitting the wall.
The tenants do not accept responsibility for the hole in the toilet wall. They say that there was no door stop to prevent damage, and that there was already a small hole in the wall, which got larger as the tenancy progressed.
The photos show that there was a door stop. The landlord says that the doorstop is big enough to prevent damage, but the tenant must have slammed the door open in order to cause the damage.
The tenants deny that they slammed the door. There is no photo of the wall at the start of the tenancy. The photos do not show that the door stop prevented the door handle from touching the wall.
The landlord has not persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the door is caused by any intentional or careless act by the tenants or anyone there with their consent. This claim is dismissed. Lounge
The damage in the lounge is on an outside corner. There are a number of scuffs and small chips. The protruding nature of such a corner makes it very susceptible to knocks and scrapes, even when vacuuming. There are no photos of the corner from the same angle at the start of the tenancy. I have decided that this amounts to fair wear and tear. Sunroom
The tenant says that the damage in the sunroom was caused by the previous tenant who had some pictures pasted to the wall. She says that the paint that fell off was where those pictures had been.
The landlord said that she did not see any pictures on that wall during either tenancy. She provided a copy of a photo that had been taken during a routine inspection in August 2023 shortly before the last tenant moved out. No damage is visible. The landlord noticed a small piece of damage on the wall during her inspection in January 2024 and recorded it in the report. It is visible in the photo. There is clear damage in the photo in January 2026. It shows a small gouge and some tape marks.
The landlord has established on the balance of probabilities that the damage occurred during the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability. Bedrooms, dining room
Some scuff marks may be classed as wear and tear, but there is extensive discolouration and a patch of lifted paint in the main bedroom. There is paint scraped off and a long line of several scrapes in the second bedroom. I am satisfied that the damage to the paint work in the bedrooms is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord produced photos which show that the tenant had a dining table and chairs with metal bases. The damage in the photos is consistent with the dining chairs knocking against the wall and skirting board when being pushed out from the table.
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.
It is reasonable that the tenant contribute approximately 2/3 of the painting costs. I order $1250 for painting.
Because Whittle Knight & Boatwood Estate Agents Limited As Agents For William Patrick Carroll has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and ordered suppression of the names and identifying details of the landlord.
The tenant is reminded that if no headboard is being used, it is likely that marks will be left on the wall if you lean your head on the wall.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5452340 — net $1,365.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$40.50	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: sensor lights	$46.84	Repairs: sensor lights
Repairs: painting	$1,250.00	Repairs: painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,365.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,365.34

Order

Simi Mele Thomas and Nirmal Thomas Zachariah must pay Whittle Knight & Boatwood Estate Agents Limited As Agents For William Patrick Carroll $1,365.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920 (5250021-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Whittle Knight & Boatwood Estate Agents Limited As Agents For William Patrick Carroll: $1,365.34 Simi Mele Thomas and Nirmal Thomas Zachariah: $554.66

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 18 January 2026.
The tenants dispute that they are liable for all of the items claimed.
The tenants agree to pay $40.50 for lawn repair and $46.84 for repair of broken sensor lights.
The matter in dispute is an invoice for $1,948.10 for patching and painting on walls in the dining room, two bedrooms, sunroom, toilet and lounge.

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 tenants took over a fixed-term lease under an assignment of lease on 5 September 2023. The original lease had started on 7 January 2023. At the start of that tenancy, walls had been freshly painted.
In September, the landlord provided the tenants with a copy of the original entry inspection report. No new inspection was undertaken in September 2023.
These tenants continued to live at the premises from September 2023 to January 2026.
The landlord filed an email that had been sent to the tenants following the end of the tenancy. It was explained that the insurers had said that an excess of $550 would be charged for each room, making a total of $2,750.
In another email dated 20 January, the tenant had said that she could understand the landlord’s concern, especially the bedroom and dining area. She said that the sunroom paint and the toilet wall hole were an issue when they moved in.
The landlord provided photographs which show: a. A small hole in the toilet wall caused by the door knob; b. Paint scratches on an outside corner in the lounge c. Discolouration and a lumpy area on the wall in the master bedroom where there had been no head board, and a small area of paint missing; d. Multiple scratches of paint on the lower wall and skirting board in the dining area; e. A small gouge and paint lifting in the sunroom; f. A line of scratches and paint lifting in the lounge. Toilet wall
There is no dispute that the hole has been caused by the door handle hitting the wall.
The tenants do not accept responsibility for the hole in the toilet wall. They say that there was no door stop to prevent damage, and that there was already a small hole in the wall, which got larger as the tenancy progressed.
The photos show that there was a door stop. The landlord says that the doorstop is big enough to prevent damage, but the tenant must have slammed the door open in order to cause the damage.
The tenants deny that they slammed the door. There is no photo of the wall at the start of the tenancy. The photos do not show that the door stop prevented the door handle from touching the wall.
The landlord has not persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the door is caused by any intentional or careless act by the tenants or anyone there with their consent. This claim is dismissed. Lounge
The damage in the lounge is on an outside corner. There are a number of scuffs and small chips. The protruding nature of such a corner makes it very susceptible to knocks and scrapes, even when vacuuming. There are no photos of the corner from the same angle at the start of the tenancy. I have decided that this amounts to fair wear and tear. Sunroom
The tenant says that the damage in the sunroom was caused by the previous tenant who had some pictures pasted to the wall. She says that the paint that fell off was where those pictures had been.
The landlord said that she did not see any pictures on that wall during either tenancy. She provided a copy of a photo that had been taken during a routine inspection in August 2023 shortly before the last tenant moved out. No damage is visible. The landlord noticed a small piece of damage on the wall during her inspection in January 2024 and recorded it in the report. It is visible in the photo. There is clear damage in the photo in January 2026. It shows a small gouge and some tape marks.
The landlord has established on the balance of probabilities that the damage occurred during the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability. Bedrooms, dining room
Some scuff marks may be classed as wear and tear, but there is extensive discolouration and a patch of lifted paint in the main bedroom. There is paint scraped off and a long line of several scrapes in the second bedroom. I am satisfied that the damage to the paint work in the bedrooms is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord produced photos which show that the tenant had a dining table and chairs with metal bases. The damage in the photos is consistent with the dining chairs knocking against the wall and skirting board when being pushed out from the table.
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.
It is reasonable that the tenant contribute approximately 2/3 of the painting costs. I order $1250 for painting.
Because Whittle Knight & Boatwood Estate Agents Limited As Agents For William Patrick Carroll has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and ordered suppression of the names and identifying details of the landlord.
The tenant is reminded that if no headboard is being used, it is likely that marks will be left on the wall if you lean your head on the wall.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452340 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 54 Tilford Street, Woolston, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452340 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 54 Tilford Street, Woolston, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions