What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452389 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5452389?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452389?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13792821-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452389 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5452389?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452389?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13792821-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5452389 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation for water damage to a kitchen bench.

The tenant denies that they are responsible for this.

The tenancy is ongoing.

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.

At the first property inspection, the property manager noticed that there was pooling of water on the bench, in front of the sink and that the strip of laminate cladding on the front of the bench was lifting. A piece and come away and cracked. The landlord says that this is because the tenant had not been properly wiping the bench down, and so says that it is caused by the tenant’s carelessness.

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.

The tenant denies that the damage is caused by their actions. The tenant provided a photograph taken inside the cupboard under the sink. He says it shows that there is dampness caused by poor sealant.

The landlord says that this photo is not relevant because it has been taken since the repairs have been done.

The onus is on the landlord to prove on the balance of probabilities that the laminate was lifting off the kitchen bench because the tenant failed to wipe the bench properly.

The property manager did not know how old the bench was at the start of the tenancy, which was 7 March 2025. By the first inspection on 2 May 2025, the laminate was lifting.

The landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the lifting of the laminate was caused by the tenant not wiping the bench properly during the first two months of the tenancy.

Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation for water damage to a kitchen bench.

The tenant denies that they are responsible for this.

The tenancy is ongoing.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord says that this photo is not relevant because it has been taken since the repairs have been done.

The onus is on the landlord to prove on the balance of probabilities that the laminate was lifting off the kitchen bench because the tenant failed to wipe the bench properly.

The property manager did not know how old the bench was at the start of the tenancy, which was 7 March 2025. By the first inspection on 2 May 2025, the laminate was lifting.

The landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the lifting of the laminate was caused by the tenant not wiping the bench properly during the first two months of the tenancy.

Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452389 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452389 — Mould & damp

At a glance

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