What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5461210 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 5461210?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $443.23 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $404.09 awarded to landlord; Wall Fix: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5461210?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5461210?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14195724-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5461210 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 5461210?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $443.23 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $404.09 awarded to landlord; Wall Fix: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5461210?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5461210?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14195724-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16A Sayer Street, Frankton, Hamilton 3204 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5461210 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

16A Sayer Street, Frankton, Hamilton 3204 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5461210 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5461210 — net $1,105.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$404.09	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: Wall fix	$230.00	Repairs: Wall fix
Lock/key replacement: garage remotes	$443.23	Lock/key replacement: garage remotes
Net award	$1,105.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,105.32

Claims and awards for application 5461210 — net $1,105.32 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $404.09
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Repairs: Wall fix

Amount: $230.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Wall fix

Lock/key replacement: garage remotes

Amount: $443.23
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement: garage remotes

Net award

Landlord $1,105.32

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,105.32

Dismissed claims

The Kitchen Sink Plug — Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $1,105.32 immediately, being rent arrears to 20 February 2026, repairs, reimbursement filing fee, locksmith fees, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$404.09 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Repairs: Wall fix$230.00 Lock/key replacement: garage remotes$443.23 Total award$1,105.32 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,105.32
I have dismissed the landlord claim for repairs to the electrical cupboard door, plug and facet in the laundry.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
In this matter, I have received an application from the landlord, together with supporting documents. The tenant has not filed a cross-application or provided any documentary evidence in support of their position. While the tenant disputes some of the landlord’s claims and asserts that the landlord is not being truthful, I am required to make my decision based on the evidence before me.
In the absence of any application or supporting evidence from the tenant, I must assess the credibility of the parties based on the material provided by the landlord and any responses made by the tenant during the hearing. Where there is a direct conflict of evidence and no independent corroboration, I must consider which version is more likely, having regard to the overall circumstances and the evidence presented.
Ultimately, the onus is on the applicant to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities. However, without evidence from the tenant to support their assertions, I am limited in my ability to give weight to their claims over those of the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 20 th February 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $2344.09 owing at the end of the tenancy. However, the Bond Centre refunded the bond back to the landlord prior to this hearing. Therefore, I must deduct the bond from the outstanding rent arrears. The remaining balance to pay is $404.09.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rent arrears.
The tenant has raised concerns that the bond was refunded to the landlord despite there being a claim before the Tribunal. I acknowledge that, in accordance with section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the bond should not be released where there is a dispute or a claim before the Tribunal. However, any error in the release of the bond is an administrative matter and is not the fault of the landlord.
Furthermore, the tenant has not filed an application with the Tribunal regarding this issue. Even if such an application were before me, the Tribunal’s powers are limited to making orders in relation to the parties to the tenancy agreement. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make orders regarding the actions of the Bond Centre or its staff.
Accordingly, while I acknowledge the tenant’s frustration, there is no remedy available through the Tribunal in relation to this matter.

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 not return the keys and the garage remotes. The tenancy agreement clearly states that the landlord provided the tenant with two sets of keys and two garage remotes.
At the end of the tenancy there were no garage remotes left and only a single key. The tenant does not know where the remotes are and assumes that they would have been left at the property. In addition, the tenant says he was only given one key, which is at odds with the signed tenancy agreement.
The landlord has provided an invoice for the cost of replacing the garage remotes and cutting two sets of keys.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven his claim for the keys and remote costs.
The landlord is seeking to claim the replacement cost of a kitchen plug. The landlord provided a receipt for $55.64 for a “plug”. The receipt does not specify which type of plug it was. The kitchen sink was a standard sink and did not have an insinkorator. The cost of a normal kitchen sink plug would not be $55.00. During the hearing, the landlord accepted this and withdrew the claim. I raise it in the order for completeness.
The claim for the kitchen sink plug is dismissed.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -The curtain rail was ripped from the wall causing damage. -Fuse box cover was not affixed to the cabinet. -Laundry tap was unscrewed and insecure.
The landlord claims that the tenant should be responsible for several items of damage at the end of the tenancy.
First, the landlord claims that the tenant caused damage to the wall when the curtain rail was ripped out. The tenant accepts responsibility for this damage. Accordingly, I find the tenant liable for the reasonable cost of repairing the wall where the curtain rail was affixed.
Second, the landlord seeks to recover the cost of having the laundry tap in the sink re-screwed after it had come loose. I do not accept that this constitutes damage caused by the tenant. The loosening of a tap is consistent with ordinary use and is more properly regarded as fair wear and tear, for which the tenant is not liable under section 49A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Third, the landlord seeks to recover the cost of restoring hinges to the fuse box. The tenants state that this issue existed and is not their responsibility. In the absence of evidence that the tenants caused this damage and given that deterioration of fittings such as hinges is commonly the result of fair wear and tear, I do not find the tenants liable for this cost.
In summary, the tenant is liable for the cost of repairing the wall where the curtain rail was ripped out, but not for the cost of re-screwing the laundry tap or
The damage to the wall is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered for the wall repairs are proven. Filing Fee/ Suppression:
Because [The tenant/s] applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for suppression of their name and details and as they have been successful, I am granting suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5461210 — net $1,105.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$404.09	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: Wall fix	$230.00	Repairs: Wall fix
Lock/key replacement: garage remotes	$443.23	Lock/key replacement: garage remotes
Net award	$1,105.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,105.32

Claims and awards for application 5461210 — net $1,105.32 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $404.09
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Repairs: Wall fix

Amount: $230.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Wall fix

Lock/key replacement: garage remotes

Amount: $443.23
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement: garage remotes

Net award

Landlord $1,105.32

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,105.32

Dismissed claims

The Kitchen Sink Plug — Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $1,105.32 immediately, being rent arrears to 20 February 2026, repairs, reimbursement filing fee, locksmith fees, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$404.09 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Repairs: Wall fix$230.00 Lock/key replacement: garage remotes$443.23 Total award$1,105.32 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,105.32
I have dismissed the landlord claim for repairs to the electrical cupboard door, plug and facet in the laundry.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
In this matter, I have received an application from the landlord, together with supporting documents. The tenant has not filed a cross-application or provided any documentary evidence in support of their position. While the tenant disputes some of the landlord’s claims and asserts that the landlord is not being truthful, I am required to make my decision based on the evidence before me.
In the absence of any application or supporting evidence from the tenant, I must assess the credibility of the parties based on the material provided by the landlord and any responses made by the tenant during the hearing. Where there is a direct conflict of evidence and no independent corroboration, I must consider which version is more likely, having regard to the overall circumstances and the evidence presented.
Ultimately, the onus is on the applicant to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities. However, without evidence from the tenant to support their assertions, I am limited in my ability to give weight to their claims over those of the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 20 th February 2026. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $2344.09 owing at the end of the tenancy. However, the Bond Centre refunded the bond back to the landlord prior to this hearing. Therefore, I must deduct the bond from the outstanding rent arrears. The remaining balance to pay is $404.09.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rent arrears.
The tenant has raised concerns that the bond was refunded to the landlord despite there being a claim before the Tribunal. I acknowledge that, in accordance with section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the bond should not be released where there is a dispute or a claim before the Tribunal. However, any error in the release of the bond is an administrative matter and is not the fault of the landlord.
Furthermore, the tenant has not filed an application with the Tribunal regarding this issue. Even if such an application were before me, the Tribunal’s powers are limited to making orders in relation to the parties to the tenancy agreement. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make orders regarding the actions of the Bond Centre or its staff.
Accordingly, while I acknowledge the tenant’s frustration, there is no remedy available through the Tribunal in relation to this matter.

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 not return the keys and the garage remotes. The tenancy agreement clearly states that the landlord provided the tenant with two sets of keys and two garage remotes.
At the end of the tenancy there were no garage remotes left and only a single key. The tenant does not know where the remotes are and assumes that they would have been left at the property. In addition, the tenant says he was only given one key, which is at odds with the signed tenancy agreement.
The landlord has provided an invoice for the cost of replacing the garage remotes and cutting two sets of keys.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven his claim for the keys and remote costs.
The landlord is seeking to claim the replacement cost of a kitchen plug. The landlord provided a receipt for $55.64 for a “plug”. The receipt does not specify which type of plug it was. The kitchen sink was a standard sink and did not have an insinkorator. The cost of a normal kitchen sink plug would not be $55.00. During the hearing, the landlord accepted this and withdrew the claim. I raise it in the order for completeness.
The claim for the kitchen sink plug is dismissed.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -The curtain rail was ripped from the wall causing damage. -Fuse box cover was not affixed to the cabinet. -Laundry tap was unscrewed and insecure.
The landlord claims that the tenant should be responsible for several items of damage at the end of the tenancy.
First, the landlord claims that the tenant caused damage to the wall when the curtain rail was ripped out. The tenant accepts responsibility for this damage. Accordingly, I find the tenant liable for the reasonable cost of repairing the wall where the curtain rail was affixed.
Second, the landlord seeks to recover the cost of having the laundry tap in the sink re-screwed after it had come loose. I do not accept that this constitutes damage caused by the tenant. The loosening of a tap is consistent with ordinary use and is more properly regarded as fair wear and tear, for which the tenant is not liable under section 49A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Third, the landlord seeks to recover the cost of restoring hinges to the fuse box. The tenants state that this issue existed and is not their responsibility. In the absence of evidence that the tenants caused this damage and given that deterioration of fittings such as hinges is commonly the result of fair wear and tear, I do not find the tenants liable for this cost.
In summary, the tenant is liable for the cost of repairing the wall where the curtain rail was ripped out, but not for the cost of re-screwing the laundry tap or
The damage to the wall is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered for the wall repairs are proven. Filing Fee/ Suppression:
Because [The tenant/s] applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for suppression of their name and details and as they have been successful, I am granting suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5461210 — Property damage at 16A Sayer Street, Frankton, Hamilton 3204

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5461210 — Property damage at 16A Sayer Street, Frankton, Hamilton 3204

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.