What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465870 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5465870?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465870?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13963477-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465870 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5465870?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465870?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13963477-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 19 Janese Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5465870 — Property damage

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

On 11 March 2026 the landlord filed an application seeking compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The matter was first called on 25 May 2026. At that time both parties sought an adjournment. The landlord wanted the opportunity to produce additional documents in support of their claim, specifically: a. Pre-tenancy inspection photographs proving the condition of the fence at the commencement of the tenancy. b. Photographs of the fence proving the damage. c. Affidavit evidence from the neighbours supporting the landlord’s claim that the tenant’s dogs damaged the fence. d. An invoice for the cost of repairs. The tenant sought additional time to provide evidence in defence of the claim, including: a. Correspondence between herself, the landlord and the property manager asking for the fence to be repaired. b. Photographs taken at the commencement of the tenancy proving the fence frame and panels were on a lean and rotten.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Menny Ng Chok, Property Manager, appeared on behalf of the landlord. The tenant was joined to the hearing by telephone.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.

Did the tenant damage the fence?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $3,302.80 for the replacement cost of a 13-meter wooden boundary fence they say the tenant’s dogs damaged. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord did not provide any evidence proving the condition of the fence at the commencement of the tenancy. Nor was any evidence provided to prove the damage claimed.
The landlord offered hearsay evidence that the tenant’s dogs were responsible for damaging the fence by leaning against it. This evidence based on a previous property managers discussion with neighbours. No corroborate evidence in the form of witness statements, direct oral evidence from witnesses, photographs, or video footage was provided.
The landlord was unable to advise the age of the fence but acknowledged that it was old.
The tenant disputes any liability for damage to the fence and its replacement cost. The tenant said that when she moved into the property she noted the fence was old and in poor condition. Because of this she asked for it to be replaced, as her two dogs (allowed under the terms of the tenancy) kept escaping from the yard.
The tenant provided the Tribunal with two photographs of the fence taken at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs show the fence to be in poor condition. The Tribunal notes the palings were not straight but tilted to the side and leaning into the tenant’s property. There were at least two palings missing and fence stain had faded and was weathered. The landlord accepted that this was the condition of the fence at the commencement of the tenancy.
The Tribunal was also provided with email correspondence between the tenant and the property manager. The emails highlight the poor condition of the fence and asking for it to be repaired.
After hearing from the parties and considering all of the evidence I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the tenant damaged the fence and is liable for the replacement cost. That is because no evidence was provided by the landlord to substantiate their claim the tenant’s dogs damaged the fence. The Tribunal is satisfied the fence was old and in poor condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The replacement of the fence was due to normal wear and tear. The claim is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

On 11 March 2026 the landlord filed an application seeking compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The matter was first called on 25 May 2026. At that time both parties sought an adjournment. The landlord wanted the opportunity to produce additional documents in support of their claim, specifically: a. Pre-tenancy inspection photographs proving the condition of the fence at the commencement of the tenancy. b. Photographs of the fence proving the damage. c. Affidavit evidence from the neighbours supporting the landlord’s claim that the tenant’s dogs damaged the fence. d. An invoice for the cost of repairs. The tenant sought additional time to provide evidence in defence of the claim, including: a. Correspondence between herself, the landlord and the property manager asking for the fence to be repaired. b. Photographs taken at the commencement of the tenancy proving the fence frame and panels were on a lean and rotten.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Menny Ng Chok, Property Manager, appeared on behalf of the landlord. The tenant was joined to the hearing by telephone.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.

Did the tenant damage the fence?

The landlord seeks compensation totalling $3,302.80 for the replacement cost of a 13-meter wooden boundary fence they say the tenant’s dogs damaged. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord did not provide any evidence proving the condition of the fence at the commencement of the tenancy. Nor was any evidence provided to prove the damage claimed.
The landlord offered hearsay evidence that the tenant’s dogs were responsible for damaging the fence by leaning against it. This evidence based on a previous property managers discussion with neighbours. No corroborate evidence in the form of witness statements, direct oral evidence from witnesses, photographs, or video footage was provided.
The landlord was unable to advise the age of the fence but acknowledged that it was old.
The tenant disputes any liability for damage to the fence and its replacement cost. The tenant said that when she moved into the property she noted the fence was old and in poor condition. Because of this she asked for it to be replaced, as her two dogs (allowed under the terms of the tenancy) kept escaping from the yard.
The tenant provided the Tribunal with two photographs of the fence taken at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs show the fence to be in poor condition. The Tribunal notes the palings were not straight but tilted to the side and leaning into the tenant’s property. There were at least two palings missing and fence stain had faded and was weathered. The landlord accepted that this was the condition of the fence at the commencement of the tenancy.
The Tribunal was also provided with email correspondence between the tenant and the property manager. The emails highlight the poor condition of the fence and asking for it to be repaired.
After hearing from the parties and considering all of the evidence I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the tenant damaged the fence and is liable for the replacement cost. That is because no evidence was provided by the landlord to substantiate their claim the tenant’s dogs damaged the fence. The Tribunal is satisfied the fence was old and in poor condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The replacement of the fence was due to normal wear and tear. The claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465870 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 19 Janese Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465870 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 19 Janese Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant damage the fence?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant damage the fence?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.