How much money was awarded in case 5462009?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5462009?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5462009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13653619-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5462009?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5462009?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5462009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13653619-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5462009 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5462009 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details in

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details in any publication of this order.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,580.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The application for rent arrears is withdrawn by the applicant.
The claims for compensation for damage and filing fee are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by videoconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 2 March 2026. The landlord provided rent records and advised that the tenant has paid off the remaining rent arrears so sought to withdraw this claim.

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 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 landlord claimed that the tenant caused damage to the paintwork during the tenancy.
The landlord sent the tenant a 14 day notice to remedy dated 19 January 2026 stating that there was damage to Doors damage to “- 3 doors and one hallway cupboard door - Walls damage to bedroom walls and lounge wall” and requiring the tenant to rectify the damage.
The tenants stated that they arranged for painting to be done as requested.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord claimed that although the repairs had been done and there was no issue with the colour match the paint finish was not what they required and they seek a repaint.
The tenant stated that the doors were manufacturer painted and this finish cannot be achieved by a repaint.
The landlord provided entry and exit photographs and two quotes, one for the repaint of the walls and the other for the repaint of the doors totalling $3398.60. The landlord advised that the owner has insurance and the excess is $750.00. Evidence of the work being completed and the actual cost was not provided.
I have considered the evidence and find that the landlord has not proved the claim on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons; (a)The entry inspection report records existing marks to two of the doors and shows lifting paint on the lounge window sills. (b)No evidence was provided of the age of the paintwork at the beginning of the tenancy. (c)Tenants do not have an automatic obligation to remedy damage unless it is proved that it is beyond fair wear and tear pursuant to section 49A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, however, in any event in this case the tenant rectified the painting requested by the landlord. (d)There is insufficient evidence provided by the landlord that the painting done by the tenant caused damage. (e)The exit inspection report records no concerns with the walls or doors, therefore, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved there was damage to doors and walls beyond fair wear and tear at the end of the tenancy. (f)The landlord has only provided one quote for the repaint of each of the walls and doors and it is uncertain whether the work has been done so even if damage was proved the cost to remedy is not clearly established.
Therefore, the application is dismissed.
As the landlord claim on the bond is unsuccessful the bond belongs to the tenants and is refunded in full.
Because [The landlord/s] has not succeeded with the claim I have not reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Having considered the factors in this case I find that the interests of the parties outweigh any public interest in their identities being made public and order suppression of their identities in any publication of this order.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details in any publication of this order.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,580.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

The application for rent arrears is withdrawn by the applicant.

The claims for compensation for damage and filing fee are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by videoconference.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 2 March 2026. The landlord provided rent records and advised that the tenant has paid off the remaining rent arrears so sought to withdraw this claim.

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 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 landlord claimed that the tenant caused damage to the paintwork during the tenancy.

The landlord sent the tenant a 14 day notice to remedy dated 19 January 2026 stating that there was damage to Doors damage to “- 3 doors and one hallway cupboard door - Walls damage to bedroom walls and lounge wall” and requiring the tenant to rectify the damage.

The tenants stated that they arranged for painting to be done as requested.

At the end of the tenancy the landlord claimed that although the repairs had been done and there was no issue with the colour match the paint finish was not what they required and they seek a repaint.

The tenant stated that the doors were manufacturer painted and this finish cannot be achieved by a repaint.

The landlord provided entry and exit photographs and two quotes, one for the repaint of the walls and the other for the repaint of the doors totalling $3398.60. The landlord advised that the owner has insurance and the excess is $750.00. Evidence of the work being completed and the actual cost was not provided.

I have considered the evidence and find that the landlord has not proved the claim on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons; (a)The entry inspection report records existing marks to two of the doors and shows lifting paint on the lounge window sills. (b)No evidence was provided of the age of the paintwork at the beginning of the tenancy. (c)Tenants do not have an automatic obligation to remedy damage unless it is proved that it is beyond fair wear and tear pursuant to section 49A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, however, in any event in this case the tenant rectified the painting requested by the landlord. (d)There is insufficient evidence provided by the landlord that the painting done by the tenant caused damage. (e)The exit inspection report records no concerns with the walls or doors, therefore, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved there was damage to doors and walls beyond fair wear and tear at the end of the tenancy. (f)The landlord has only provided one quote for the repaint of each of the walls and doors and it is uncertain whether the work has been done so even if damage was proved the cost to remedy is not clearly established.

Therefore, the application is dismissed.

As the landlord claim on the bond is unsuccessful the bond belongs to the tenants and is refunded in full.

Because [The landlord/s] has not succeeded with the claim I have not reimbursed the filing fee.

The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Having considered the factors in this case I find that the interests of the parties outweigh any public interest in their identities being made public and order suppression of their identities in any publication of this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5462009 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5462009 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions