What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5459078 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 5459078?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Plant Pot: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $227.98 awarded to tenant; Hinges: $22.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5459078?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5459078?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13761053-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5459078 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 5459078?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Plant Pot: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $227.98 awarded to tenant; Hinges: $22.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5459078?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5459078?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13761053-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5459078 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5459078 — net $286.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$200.00		Rubbish removal
Repairs: Hinges	$22.00		tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $22.00.
Repairs: Wall	$300.00		tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $300.00.
Plant pot	$20.00		lity or the cost of replacement has been provided. The tenant is ordered to pay $20.00 for a replacement pot.
Rent credit		$227.98	Rent credit
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$542.00	$255.98
Net award	$286.02
Bond	$2,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$286.02

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Property Brokers Limited - Horowhenua / Whanganui Region On Behalf Of Central Holding Trust $286.02 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Limited - Horowhenua / Whanganui Region On Behalf Of Central Holding Trust: $286.02 [The tenant/s]: $1,813.98

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 6 December 2024 and ended on 22 December 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for release of her bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
Any claim before the Tribunal requires proof of liability and also evidence to support the amount claimed by the party. This will generally be by way of invoices , quotes or evidence of comparative prices.

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
No final inspection took place and as a result few photos of the condition of the premises were available.
The landlord carried out the cleaning himself and seeks $300.00.
The burden of proof is on the landlord to prove the claim. I am not persuaded on the limited evidence available that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy as that term is defined. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord says that the tenant did not remove all rubbish. Once again limited evidence is provided of the rubbish removed and any associated costs. The work was carried out by the landlord. The landlord seeks compensation of $250.00.
The tenant accepts that some rubbish was left behind and agrees to pay $100.00 in compensation. As best as I am able to ascertain, I consider compensation of $200.00 is reasonable.
The landlord says that a dog run and dog kennel were missing from his adjoining property at the end of the tenancy and that the items were removed by the tenant. I am not required to make a decision on this issue as the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to do so. The items were not provided as chattels to the tenant and were not situated on the tenanted property. If the landlord wishes to pursue this matter, he must do so in another jurisdiction.
The landlord says that a fire fan was found in the rubbish. The tenant said that it was left on a nail on the deck at the end of the tenancy. That seems to be confirmed by a photo provided in evidence. The claim is dismissed for lack of evidence. The landlord has not proven that it is more likely than not that the fire fan was removed or damaged.
The landlord says that the tenant has used the landlord’s firewood. The tenant denies this. The burden of proof is on the landlord. No supporting evidence was provided. I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that it is more likely than not that the firewood was used by the tenant. The claim is dismissed.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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. The tenancy agreement records that the landlord is insured and that the landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $550.00 on each and every claim.
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 says that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
A woodshed was damaged by the tenant’s children. The landlord provided a statement from a neighbour confirming the cause of the damage. The tenant said that the neighbour was mistaken.
The woodshed was built by the landlord just prior to the commencement of the tenancy at a cost of $6,000.00. No evidence was provided by the landlord to confirm this pre tenancy cost.
The landlord seeks $6,000.00 for the costs of repairs to the woodshed. No evidence of any type was provided to support this claim. No evidence was provided as to the need for repairs or complete replacement of the shed. The burden of proof is on the landlord. It is not for the Tribunal to simply accept what is claimed by a party without supporting evidence or to guess. For this reason, the claim is dismissed.
Hinges on a kitchen cupboard were damaged. The landlord’s proof of replacement costs shows that a set of hinges is valued at $22.00 The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $22.00.
The deck has a small burn mark. The landlord says that this occurred during the tenancy and seeks compensation of $200.00. No supporting evidence as to the costs for repair have been provided. The burden of proof is on the landlord. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord seeks compensation of $300.00 for repairs to a wall. Photos of the wall were provided. The tenant said that the damage had been caused accidentally. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $300.00.
The landlord says that plant pots were damaged. The tenant accepts that one pot was damaged. No further evidence as to liability or the cost of replacement has been provided. The tenant is ordered to pay $20.00 for a replacement pot.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Both parties applied for reimbursement of the filing fee. I consider that the tenant has been substantially successful in this matter and order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee to the tenant. I make no order for reimbursement of the landlord’s filing fee as I do not consider that the landlord has been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing.
The tenant applied for name suppression. As I consider that the tenant has substantially successful in this hearing, an order for suppression of the tenant’s name and details is made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5459078 — net $286.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$200.00		Rubbish removal
Repairs: Hinges	$22.00		tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $22.00.
Repairs: Wall	$300.00		tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $300.00.
Plant pot	$20.00		lity or the cost of replacement has been provided. The tenant is ordered to pay $20.00 for a replacement pot.
Rent credit		$227.98	Rent credit
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$542.00	$255.98
Net award	$286.02
Bond	$2,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$286.02

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Property Brokers Limited - Horowhenua / Whanganui Region On Behalf Of Central Holding Trust $286.02 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Limited - Horowhenua / Whanganui Region On Behalf Of Central Holding Trust: $286.02 [The tenant/s]: $1,813.98

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 6 December 2024 and ended on 22 December 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for release of her bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
Any claim before the Tribunal requires proof of liability and also evidence to support the amount claimed by the party. This will generally be by way of invoices , quotes or evidence of comparative prices.

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
No final inspection took place and as a result few photos of the condition of the premises were available.
The landlord carried out the cleaning himself and seeks $300.00.
The burden of proof is on the landlord to prove the claim. I am not persuaded on the limited evidence available that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy as that term is defined. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord says that the tenant did not remove all rubbish. Once again limited evidence is provided of the rubbish removed and any associated costs. The work was carried out by the landlord. The landlord seeks compensation of $250.00.
The tenant accepts that some rubbish was left behind and agrees to pay $100.00 in compensation. As best as I am able to ascertain, I consider compensation of $200.00 is reasonable.
The landlord says that a dog run and dog kennel were missing from his adjoining property at the end of the tenancy and that the items were removed by the tenant. I am not required to make a decision on this issue as the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to do so. The items were not provided as chattels to the tenant and were not situated on the tenanted property. If the landlord wishes to pursue this matter, he must do so in another jurisdiction.
The landlord says that a fire fan was found in the rubbish. The tenant said that it was left on a nail on the deck at the end of the tenancy. That seems to be confirmed by a photo provided in evidence. The claim is dismissed for lack of evidence. The landlord has not proven that it is more likely than not that the fire fan was removed or damaged.
The landlord says that the tenant has used the landlord’s firewood. The tenant denies this. The burden of proof is on the landlord. No supporting evidence was provided. I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that it is more likely than not that the firewood was used by the tenant. The claim is dismissed.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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. The tenancy agreement records that the landlord is insured and that the landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $550.00 on each and every claim.
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 says that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
A woodshed was damaged by the tenant’s children. The landlord provided a statement from a neighbour confirming the cause of the damage. The tenant said that the neighbour was mistaken.
The woodshed was built by the landlord just prior to the commencement of the tenancy at a cost of $6,000.00. No evidence was provided by the landlord to confirm this pre tenancy cost.
The landlord seeks $6,000.00 for the costs of repairs to the woodshed. No evidence of any type was provided to support this claim. No evidence was provided as to the need for repairs or complete replacement of the shed. The burden of proof is on the landlord. It is not for the Tribunal to simply accept what is claimed by a party without supporting evidence or to guess. For this reason, the claim is dismissed.
Hinges on a kitchen cupboard were damaged. The landlord’s proof of replacement costs shows that a set of hinges is valued at $22.00 The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $22.00.
The deck has a small burn mark. The landlord says that this occurred during the tenancy and seeks compensation of $200.00. No supporting evidence as to the costs for repair have been provided. The burden of proof is on the landlord. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord seeks compensation of $300.00 for repairs to a wall. Photos of the wall were provided. The tenant said that the damage had been caused accidentally. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $300.00.
The landlord says that plant pots were damaged. The tenant accepts that one pot was damaged. No further evidence as to liability or the cost of replacement has been provided. The tenant is ordered to pay $20.00 for a replacement pot.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Both parties applied for reimbursement of the filing fee. I consider that the tenant has been substantially successful in this matter and order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee to the tenant. I make no order for reimbursement of the landlord’s filing fee as I do not consider that the landlord has been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing.
The tenant applied for name suppression. As I consider that the tenant has substantially successful in this hearing, an order for suppression of the tenant’s name and details is made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5459078 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5459078 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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