What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5478479 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Prestige Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5478479?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5478479?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5478479?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13947979-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5478479 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Prestige Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5478479?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5478479?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5478479?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13947979-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 1, 37 McLean Street, Linwood, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5478479 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5478479 — net $250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Reduced insurance excess for replacing garage door	$250.00	Reduced insurance excess for replacing garage door
Net award	$250.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$250.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Prestige Property Management Limited $250.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted via video conference.
Ms Iles appeared for the landlord. She is the property manager and appeared as a representative from the landlord’s office.
Mr and Mrs Rodriguez are the tenants. Mrs Rodriguez addressed me while Mr Rodriguez sat beside her during the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Mrs Rodriguez filed a cross-application. Although framed as a cross-application, I find that it was, in substance, a response to the landlord’s claims. Mrs Rodriguez disputed the landlord’s claims. The cross-application did not raise any independent claim against the landlord beyond disputing the landlord’s claims. Accordingly, the tenants’ cross-application is dismissed. Background
The tenancy commenced on 31 January 2019 and ended on 14 March 2026. The tenants occupied the premises for 7 years, 1 month and 15 days.
Mrs Rodriguez told me the house was built in 2018. I accept that evidence. The practical effect is that the tenants moved into a near-new house at the beginning of the tenancy.
There was no suggestion during the hearing that Mrs Rodriguez generally failed to look after the premises. No general complaint was made about the way the tenants cared for the property over the course of the tenancy.
Mrs Rodriguez provided photographs taken between 5 and 14 February 2019, shortly after the tenancy commenced. They show damage to walls and the kitchen window sill at the start of the tenancy. I consider them to have significant evidential value in assessing the landlord’s claim for wall repairs. They show that, despite the house being near-new, some walls and the kitchen window sill were not in reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy. Those matters should have, and could have, been addressed before the tenancy commenced.

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 happened during the tenancy. Garage door
The landlord claims the insurance excess of $500 for the garage door replacement.
The landlord did not submit that the damage to the garage door was intentional. Mrs Rodriguez accepted that the damage was her fault. She said she misjudged the distance when parking her car.
Ms Iles submitted that the garage door could not be repaired. She said two experts had looked at the damage and concluded that the whole garage door had to be replaced. Ms Iles submitted that, because it could not be fixed, replacement was required.
Mrs Rodriguez submitted that, despite the dent, the garage door remained functional. She also submitted that she had asked for a repair quote but was instead provided with an invoice for replacement of the garage door.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the garage door required replacement. I also accept that the insurance excess was $500.
However, the house was about 8 years old by the end of the tenancy. The landlord is receiving a new garage door in place of a garage door that had already been in use for several years. It is therefore appropriate to reduce the amount payable to reflect depreciation and betterment.
Taking those matters into account, I reduce the landlord’s claim by 50%. The landlord is entitled to compensation of $250 for the garage door. Vinyl flooring
The landlord claims the insurance excess of $500 for the replacement of the hallway vinyl.
I have viewed the photographs provided by both parties. The damage was to a corner of the vinyl outside the master bedroom. A small piece of vinyl was missing from the corner.
The landlord’s position was that the entire hallway vinyl, about 15 metres long, required replacement because of colour matching issues. In my view, colour matching is not determinative of whether the tenants are liable. The first question is whether the landlord has proved that the damage itself was not fair wear and tear.
I asked Ms Iles why the damage should not be treated as fair wear and tear. Ms Iles submitted that the damage was not fair wear and tear, but she did not provide a persuasive explanation or supporting evidence to establish why that was so.
I was not provided with sufficient evidence about the quality of the vinyl, its expected lifespan, or why damage of this kind, after a tenancy of more than 7 years, should be treated as tenant damage rather than fair wear and tear.
Even if the vinyl was of good quality, it was flooring in an area used by occupants for walking. After a tenancy of 7 years, 1 month and 15 days, some wear to flooring is to be expected.
On the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has discharged the burden of proving that the vinyl damage was not fair wear and tear.
The claim for vinyl flooring is dismissed. Painting of walls and kitchen sill
The landlord claims compensation for painting of walls and one bottom sill in the kitchen for colour matching.
I have reviewed the photographs submitted by both parties. Some areas where paint appears to be peeling may have been present at the beginning of the tenancy. That is consistent with the photographs Mrs Rodriguez took between 5 and 14 February 2019.
There are also areas that appear discoloured. Some of those areas may have been caused by furniture leaning against, or being in contact with, the walls. It is difficult to form a conclusive view about how those discoloured areas occurred. The only area of discolouration specifically accepted by Mrs Rodriguez was in the master bedroom, where she accepted it was caused by her head leaning against the wall. By inference, Mrs Rodriguez would have sat on the bed with her head leaning against the wall.
However, when I considered the photographs as a whole, other areas of the walls appeared clean and without scratches or damage. Again, bearing in mind that the tenancy lasted for 7 years, 1 month and 15 days, I cannot exclude the reasonable possibility that the discolouration was the result of fair wear and tear. Touching, time, and even cleaning could cause discolouration. However, touching, time, and cleaning would not cause dents, holes, or scratches. None of those were present in the other areas.
I understand that the landlord wants the rental property to be kept in perfect and pristine condition. However, during the tenancy of 7 years, 1 month and 15 days, the landlord’s rental property was Mr and Mrs Rodriguez’s home. I struggle to understand why the discolouration is not fair wear and tear when Mr and Mrs Rodriguez were simply enjoying their home.
I also take into account that there was some damage to the walls and kitchen sill at the start of the tenancy. Those matters should have been addressed before the tenants moved in. The existence of those early defects makes it more difficult to attribute the later painting claim to damage caused by the tenants rather than to pre-existing condition, ordinary use, or fair wear and tear.
Considering the evidence as a whole, I am not persuaded that the discoloured areas, or the painting required, were caused by tenant damage rather than fair wear and tear.
The claim for painting of the walls and kitchen sill is dismissed. Filing fee
Both parties have obtained judgment in their favour on their respective claims. I consider it appropriate that costs lie where they fall.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5478479 — net $250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Reduced insurance excess for replacing garage door	$250.00	Reduced insurance excess for replacing garage door
Net award	$250.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$250.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Prestige Property Management Limited $250.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted via video conference.
Ms Iles appeared for the landlord. She is the property manager and appeared as a representative from the landlord’s office.
Mr and Mrs Rodriguez are the tenants. Mrs Rodriguez addressed me while Mr Rodriguez sat beside her during the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Mrs Rodriguez filed a cross-application. Although framed as a cross-application, I find that it was, in substance, a response to the landlord’s claims. Mrs Rodriguez disputed the landlord’s claims. The cross-application did not raise any independent claim against the landlord beyond disputing the landlord’s claims. Accordingly, the tenants’ cross-application is dismissed. Background
The tenancy commenced on 31 January 2019 and ended on 14 March 2026. The tenants occupied the premises for 7 years, 1 month and 15 days.
Mrs Rodriguez told me the house was built in 2018. I accept that evidence. The practical effect is that the tenants moved into a near-new house at the beginning of the tenancy.
There was no suggestion during the hearing that Mrs Rodriguez generally failed to look after the premises. No general complaint was made about the way the tenants cared for the property over the course of the tenancy.
Mrs Rodriguez provided photographs taken between 5 and 14 February 2019, shortly after the tenancy commenced. They show damage to walls and the kitchen window sill at the start of the tenancy. I consider them to have significant evidential value in assessing the landlord’s claim for wall repairs. They show that, despite the house being near-new, some walls and the kitchen window sill were not in reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy. Those matters should have, and could have, been addressed before the tenancy commenced.

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 happened during the tenancy. Garage door
The landlord claims the insurance excess of $500 for the garage door replacement.
The landlord did not submit that the damage to the garage door was intentional. Mrs Rodriguez accepted that the damage was her fault. She said she misjudged the distance when parking her car.
Ms Iles submitted that the garage door could not be repaired. She said two experts had looked at the damage and concluded that the whole garage door had to be replaced. Ms Iles submitted that, because it could not be fixed, replacement was required.
Mrs Rodriguez submitted that, despite the dent, the garage door remained functional. She also submitted that she had asked for a repair quote but was instead provided with an invoice for replacement of the garage door.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the garage door required replacement. I also accept that the insurance excess was $500.
However, the house was about 8 years old by the end of the tenancy. The landlord is receiving a new garage door in place of a garage door that had already been in use for several years. It is therefore appropriate to reduce the amount payable to reflect depreciation and betterment.
Taking those matters into account, I reduce the landlord’s claim by 50%. The landlord is entitled to compensation of $250 for the garage door. Vinyl flooring
The landlord claims the insurance excess of $500 for the replacement of the hallway vinyl.
I have viewed the photographs provided by both parties. The damage was to a corner of the vinyl outside the master bedroom. A small piece of vinyl was missing from the corner.
The landlord’s position was that the entire hallway vinyl, about 15 metres long, required replacement because of colour matching issues. In my view, colour matching is not determinative of whether the tenants are liable. The first question is whether the landlord has proved that the damage itself was not fair wear and tear.
I asked Ms Iles why the damage should not be treated as fair wear and tear. Ms Iles submitted that the damage was not fair wear and tear, but she did not provide a persuasive explanation or supporting evidence to establish why that was so.
I was not provided with sufficient evidence about the quality of the vinyl, its expected lifespan, or why damage of this kind, after a tenancy of more than 7 years, should be treated as tenant damage rather than fair wear and tear.
Even if the vinyl was of good quality, it was flooring in an area used by occupants for walking. After a tenancy of 7 years, 1 month and 15 days, some wear to flooring is to be expected.
On the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has discharged the burden of proving that the vinyl damage was not fair wear and tear.
The claim for vinyl flooring is dismissed. Painting of walls and kitchen sill
The landlord claims compensation for painting of walls and one bottom sill in the kitchen for colour matching.
I have reviewed the photographs submitted by both parties. Some areas where paint appears to be peeling may have been present at the beginning of the tenancy. That is consistent with the photographs Mrs Rodriguez took between 5 and 14 February 2019.
There are also areas that appear discoloured. Some of those areas may have been caused by furniture leaning against, or being in contact with, the walls. It is difficult to form a conclusive view about how those discoloured areas occurred. The only area of discolouration specifically accepted by Mrs Rodriguez was in the master bedroom, where she accepted it was caused by her head leaning against the wall. By inference, Mrs Rodriguez would have sat on the bed with her head leaning against the wall.
However, when I considered the photographs as a whole, other areas of the walls appeared clean and without scratches or damage. Again, bearing in mind that the tenancy lasted for 7 years, 1 month and 15 days, I cannot exclude the reasonable possibility that the discolouration was the result of fair wear and tear. Touching, time, and even cleaning could cause discolouration. However, touching, time, and cleaning would not cause dents, holes, or scratches. None of those were present in the other areas.
I understand that the landlord wants the rental property to be kept in perfect and pristine condition. However, during the tenancy of 7 years, 1 month and 15 days, the landlord’s rental property was Mr and Mrs Rodriguez’s home. I struggle to understand why the discolouration is not fair wear and tear when Mr and Mrs Rodriguez were simply enjoying their home.
I also take into account that there was some damage to the walls and kitchen sill at the start of the tenancy. Those matters should have been addressed before the tenants moved in. The existence of those early defects makes it more difficult to attribute the later painting claim to damage caused by the tenants rather than to pre-existing condition, ordinary use, or fair wear and tear.
Considering the evidence as a whole, I am not persuaded that the discoloured areas, or the painting required, were caused by tenant damage rather than fair wear and tear.
The claim for painting of the walls and kitchen sill is dismissed. Filing fee
Both parties have obtained judgment in their favour on their respective claims. I consider it appropriate that costs lie where they fall.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5478479 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 37 McLean Street, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5478479 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 37 McLean Street, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions