What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5471660 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Home Sweet Home

How much money was awarded in case 5471660?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5471660?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5471660?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13886307-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5471660 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Home Sweet Home

How much money was awarded in case 5471660?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5471660?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5471660?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13886307-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31 Melwood Drive, Warkworth, Warkworth 0910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5471660 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5471660 — net $488.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Bench top chip damage	$460.00	he tenant has not disproved liability for the damage, I order the tenant to pay $460.00 for repair of the benchtop damage. Break lease fee and landlord unreaso…
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$488.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$488.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Home Sweet Home Property Management Limited For Martin Peter And [The landlord/s] $488.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $488.00 (6441473-004) to Home Sweet Home Property Management Limited For Martin Peter And [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,152.00 (6441473-004) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via video conference on 26 June 2026.
The tenancy was from 13 September 2024 until 19 March 2026. 5471660, 54794912
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant applied for full refund of the bond and exemplary damages. The tenant claimed that they were not liable for damage caused on the benchtop as it was accidental damage, that they were charged for rent when they should not have, the landlord unreasonably withheld consent to reassigning a tenancy, and the break lease fee charged was excessive.
The landlord made a cross-application for compensation for damage caused to the kitchen benchtop and break lease fee. Countertop damage
For damage claims, 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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. 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 provided photos of the kitchen benchtop from during and end of the tenancy to prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant said that the damage must have been caused “accidentally” and therefore the tenant was not liable. 5471660, 54794913
The tenant provided references to previous cases from the Tenancy Tribunal where the tenant was found not liable for “accidental damage”. Those were cases 4251455, 4263906, 4272505, 4272034, and 4261406.
Those are all cases from a distinct period between May and September 2020 where the new amendments made to the RTA had not been settled well. Since that period, the law is well settled that “accidental damage” is essentially a subset of “careless damage”.
Accordingly, as the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage, I order the tenant to pay $460.00 for repair of the benchtop damage. Break lease fee and landlord unreasonably withholding assignment
The tenancy was originally for a fixed term ending on 14 September 2026.
However, as the tenant had bought a place of their own, the tenant sought to end the fixed-term tenancy earlier.
The landlord accepted the request to end the fixed term tenancy on the condition that the tenant pays for the break lease costs. The tenancy was to end as soon as another tenant was found. The tenant agreed to this.
The tenant looked for subsequent tenants to take over the premises and proposed another couple of tenants who were in a similar situation as theirs.
The landlord declined the first potential replacement tenant that was proposed by the tenant. However, the landlord accepted the second potential replacement tenant, and their tenancy began on 20 March 2026.
The tenant claimed that the landlord withheld consent for the first replacement tenant unreasonably and that had resulted in delay with their tenancy ending earlier.
At the hearing, the landlord explained that the first potential tenant was refused due to their lack of ability to service rent. One tenant was working part-time and the other tenant’s annual income was unclear as there was only a partial GST- return available at the time.
In addition to that, the first potential tenant had a pet dog that was of a more concerning breed than the one that the existing tenants had.
Even with the funds issue alone, I do not find that the landlord withheld consent unreasonably under section 43B(6) RTA.
In relation to the break lease fees, the landlord explained the break-lease procedure with a detailed break-down of the costs.
The tenant’s argument was that some of the items claimed were either double ups or could have been streamlined to be more cost-effective. 5471660, 54794914
The sum of $452.10 itself was not an unreasonable amount for break lease fees. The exit and entry inspections, travel, staffing time, credit check, mileage and administrative work are all actual costs.
I do not order for any partial refund of the break-lease fee.
The tenant also raised issues with having paid for rent until 19 March 2026 when the tenant returned the keys on 15 March 2026.
Again, that was something agreed with the landlord before the fixed-term tenancy ended to give the landlord time to conduct the exit and entry inspection and any other cleaning or repairs should that have been required.
The subsequent tenant started the tenancy on 20 March 2026 and accordingly, the landlord is justified in charging rent until 19 March 2026.
The tenant was able to request access for the premises between 15 and 19 March 2026 as rent was still being paid. However, the tenant did not sought access as it was not required by the tenant. I would have considered compensation if the tenant was denied access when rent was still paid up to that period. However, that is not the case here and accordingly no compensation is granted. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the landlord’s filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5471660 — net $488.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Bench top chip damage	$460.00	he tenant has not disproved liability for the damage, I order the tenant to pay $460.00 for repair of the benchtop damage. Break lease fee and landlord unreaso…
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$488.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$488.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Home Sweet Home Property Management Limited For Martin Peter And [The landlord/s] $488.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $488.00 (6441473-004) to Home Sweet Home Property Management Limited For Martin Peter And [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,152.00 (6441473-004) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via video conference on 26 June 2026.
The tenancy was from 13 September 2024 until 19 March 2026. 5471660, 54794912
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant applied for full refund of the bond and exemplary damages. The tenant claimed that they were not liable for damage caused on the benchtop as it was accidental damage, that they were charged for rent when they should not have, the landlord unreasonably withheld consent to reassigning a tenancy, and the break lease fee charged was excessive.
The landlord made a cross-application for compensation for damage caused to the kitchen benchtop and break lease fee. Countertop damage
For damage claims, 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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. 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 provided photos of the kitchen benchtop from during and end of the tenancy to prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant said that the damage must have been caused “accidentally” and therefore the tenant was not liable. 5471660, 54794913
The tenant provided references to previous cases from the Tenancy Tribunal where the tenant was found not liable for “accidental damage”. Those were cases 4251455, 4263906, 4272505, 4272034, and 4261406.
Those are all cases from a distinct period between May and September 2020 where the new amendments made to the RTA had not been settled well. Since that period, the law is well settled that “accidental damage” is essentially a subset of “careless damage”.
Accordingly, as the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage, I order the tenant to pay $460.00 for repair of the benchtop damage. Break lease fee and landlord unreasonably withholding assignment
The tenancy was originally for a fixed term ending on 14 September 2026.
However, as the tenant had bought a place of their own, the tenant sought to end the fixed-term tenancy earlier.
The landlord accepted the request to end the fixed term tenancy on the condition that the tenant pays for the break lease costs. The tenancy was to end as soon as another tenant was found. The tenant agreed to this.
The tenant looked for subsequent tenants to take over the premises and proposed another couple of tenants who were in a similar situation as theirs.
The landlord declined the first potential replacement tenant that was proposed by the tenant. However, the landlord accepted the second potential replacement tenant, and their tenancy began on 20 March 2026.
The tenant claimed that the landlord withheld consent for the first replacement tenant unreasonably and that had resulted in delay with their tenancy ending earlier.
At the hearing, the landlord explained that the first potential tenant was refused due to their lack of ability to service rent. One tenant was working part-time and the other tenant’s annual income was unclear as there was only a partial GST- return available at the time.
In addition to that, the first potential tenant had a pet dog that was of a more concerning breed than the one that the existing tenants had.
Even with the funds issue alone, I do not find that the landlord withheld consent unreasonably under section 43B(6) RTA.
In relation to the break lease fees, the landlord explained the break-lease procedure with a detailed break-down of the costs.
The tenant’s argument was that some of the items claimed were either double ups or could have been streamlined to be more cost-effective. 5471660, 54794914
The sum of $452.10 itself was not an unreasonable amount for break lease fees. The exit and entry inspections, travel, staffing time, credit check, mileage and administrative work are all actual costs.
I do not order for any partial refund of the break-lease fee.
The tenant also raised issues with having paid for rent until 19 March 2026 when the tenant returned the keys on 15 March 2026.
Again, that was something agreed with the landlord before the fixed-term tenancy ended to give the landlord time to conduct the exit and entry inspection and any other cleaning or repairs should that have been required.
The subsequent tenant started the tenancy on 20 March 2026 and accordingly, the landlord is justified in charging rent until 19 March 2026.
The tenant was able to request access for the premises between 15 and 19 March 2026 as rent was still being paid. However, the tenant did not sought access as it was not required by the tenant. I would have considered compensation if the tenant was denied access when rent was still paid up to that period. However, that is not the case here and accordingly no compensation is granted. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the landlord’s filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5471660 — Property damage at 31 Melwood Drive, Warkworth, Warkworth 0910

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5471660 — Property damage at 31 Melwood Drive, Warkworth, Warkworth 0910

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions