What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5454608 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5454608?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5454608?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5454608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13662928-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5454608 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5454608?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5454608?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5454608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13662928-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

7C Sheralee Place, Bucklands Beach, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5454608 — Property damage

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The tenant is granted name suppression.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 26 May 2026.
The only issue is whether the tenants are liable for damage to the high-quality vinyl flooring in one area of the premises. The landlord claims the cost of replacement flooring in the sum of $632.50. Background
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 17 February 2025 to 16 February 2026 at a weekly rent of $650.00. The premises, a townhouse, were newly built at the start of the tenancy.
No damage to the premises was identified during the tenancy, which ended on expiry of the fixed term. The landlord then noticed what were described in the application form as “multiple obvious scratches and raised spots on the floor at the 1 st floor toilet doorway leading to the backyard.” The landlord said the damage involved six floorboards.
The landlord provided a test report by Intertek dated 10 December 2025. This was said to show that the “SPC hybrid flooring” is hard-wearing and difficult to damage. The landlord said the flooring is difficult to dent or scratch. The report identified that the flooring complied with various ISO standards.
The tenant in response said they did not notice the damage while living at the premises and did not drop or spill anything on the floor. Relevant Law
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.
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. The insurance excess was $750.00.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. Analysis
The landlord brought two samples of the flooring to the hearing. The damage was difficult to see initially and is not visible from a distance. The damage is in the nature of dark, raised bumps on the surface of the flooring. They look like small spots. The bumps are a similar dark colour to the grain in the flooring. There are also some small areas where the surface looks swollen. These irregular-shaped nodules have a hollow centre.
Observing the texture of the sample flooring was helpful. The “damage” is not obviously consistent with what might happen if a tenant were to drop or spill something on the flooring. The bumps are not in the nature of dents, scratches, or gouges. The spots are not obviously caused by staining, as they are a similar colour to the grain. Overall, it is difficult to conceptualise how the tenants could have caused the damage carelessly – the concentrated pattern of the raised bumps is not consistent with careless behaviour in my opinion.
The landlord must prove to the civil standard of proof that the flooring was damaged during the tenancy. I consider it is more probable that the imperfections in the flooring are the result of an inherent defect in the product. The landlord said there are nine other units all with the same flooring, and none of them have this problem. I do not consider that this rules out a manufacturing issue. The bumps are difficult to see, so the flooring could easily have been manufactured and installed without the imperfections being noticed.
The landlord suggested that the damage could have been caused by stone chips or other hard objects when walking on the floor. The problem is that the flooring does not appear to have been damaged by any kind of impact. The discolouration and bumps appear to be integral to the surface of the product. The swollen nodules also appeared to be part of the surface finishing and likely how the product was made.
I find on the balance of probabilities that the flooring was not damaged by the tenants during the tenancy. Name Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression but has not been “wholly or substantially” successful in the proceeding, which is required.
I grant name suppression to the tenants.

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The tenant is granted name suppression.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 26 May 2026.
The only issue is whether the tenants are liable for damage to the high-quality vinyl flooring in one area of the premises. The landlord claims the cost of replacement flooring in the sum of $632.50. Background
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 17 February 2025 to 16 February 2026 at a weekly rent of $650.00. The premises, a townhouse, were newly built at the start of the tenancy.
No damage to the premises was identified during the tenancy, which ended on expiry of the fixed term. The landlord then noticed what were described in the application form as “multiple obvious scratches and raised spots on the floor at the 1 st floor toilet doorway leading to the backyard.” The landlord said the damage involved six floorboards.
The landlord provided a test report by Intertek dated 10 December 2025. This was said to show that the “SPC hybrid flooring” is hard-wearing and difficult to damage. The landlord said the flooring is difficult to dent or scratch. The report identified that the flooring complied with various ISO standards.
The tenant in response said they did not notice the damage while living at the premises and did not drop or spill anything on the floor. Relevant Law
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.
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. The insurance excess was $750.00.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. Analysis
The landlord brought two samples of the flooring to the hearing. The damage was difficult to see initially and is not visible from a distance. The damage is in the nature of dark, raised bumps on the surface of the flooring. They look like small spots. The bumps are a similar dark colour to the grain in the flooring. There are also some small areas where the surface looks swollen. These irregular-shaped nodules have a hollow centre.
Observing the texture of the sample flooring was helpful. The “damage” is not obviously consistent with what might happen if a tenant were to drop or spill something on the flooring. The bumps are not in the nature of dents, scratches, or gouges. The spots are not obviously caused by staining, as they are a similar colour to the grain. Overall, it is difficult to conceptualise how the tenants could have caused the damage carelessly – the concentrated pattern of the raised bumps is not consistent with careless behaviour in my opinion.
The landlord must prove to the civil standard of proof that the flooring was damaged during the tenancy. I consider it is more probable that the imperfections in the flooring are the result of an inherent defect in the product. The landlord said there are nine other units all with the same flooring, and none of them have this problem. I do not consider that this rules out a manufacturing issue. The bumps are difficult to see, so the flooring could easily have been manufactured and installed without the imperfections being noticed.
The landlord suggested that the damage could have been caused by stone chips or other hard objects when walking on the floor. The problem is that the flooring does not appear to have been damaged by any kind of impact. The discolouration and bumps appear to be integral to the surface of the product. The swollen nodules also appeared to be part of the surface finishing and likely how the product was made.
I find on the balance of probabilities that the flooring was not damaged by the tenants during the tenancy. Name Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression but has not been “wholly or substantially” successful in the proceeding, which is required.
I grant name suppression to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5454608 — Property damage at 7C Sheralee Place, Bucklands Beach, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5454608 — Property damage at 7C Sheralee Place, Bucklands Beach, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions