Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5486993 — Property damage at 1 Verdot Close, Kumeu, Kumeu 0810
Decided 12 June 2026 · Published 12 June 2026 · Application 5486993
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Kumeu
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Allan
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $428.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $428.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs to garage door (insurance excess as listed in the tenancy agreement | $400.00 | Repairs to garage door (insurance excess as listed in the tenancy agreement | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | has been the substantially successful party I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28.00. | |
| Net award | $428.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $428.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5486993 — net $428.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Repairs to garage door (insurance excess as listed in the tenancy agreement
- Amount
- $400.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs to garage door (insurance excess as listed in the tenancy agreement
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- has been the substantially successful party I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28.00.
Net award
Landlord $428.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $428.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The tenants’ application for an order setting aside the 90-day termination notice issued by the landlord on 19 March 2026, which is due to expire on 16 June 2026, is dismissed.
- With the consent of the landlord the possession date is extended with the effect that the landlord is entitled to possession of the property at 1 Verdot Close, Kumeu, Kumeu 0810 at 5pm on Sunday, 12 July 2026.
- Hayden Benjiman Rimmer, Karen Joy Rimmer and Luke Johnathan Rimmer must pay Advanced Property Management Limited as agent for Vineeta Ravindran $428.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- The balance of the tenants’ claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- Aaron Tomlin represented the landlord. The owner attended with her husband and brother-in-law as support people.
- All three tenants attended.
- This periodic tenancy of a three bedroom home in Kumeu began on 23 August 2025.
- The tenants filed a claim on 13 April seeking: a. An order setting a side the landlord’s 90-day termination notice issued on 19 March 2026 on the basis that the notice is retaliatory. b. Compensation and exemplary damages for the following breaches: i. Issuing a retaliatory notice; ii. Breaching the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment/harassment; iii. Not providing correct insurance information or a copy of the current insurance policy; and iv. Not supplying a copy of the Body Corporate rules with the tenancy agreement.
- The landlord filed a claim on 15 April seeking: a. termination of the tenancy for breaches of the tenancy agreement (although the landlord relies primarily on the 90-day notice); b. water arrears of $27.16; and c. compensation for a damaged gate in the amount of $750 (being the insurance excess).
- At the start of the Mr Tomlin explained that the water was no longer in arrears and so the claim for water arrears is withdrawn. Onus and evidence
- As with all claims that come before the Tribunal, the onus is on the party bringing the claim to prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
- A large number of documents were filed by both parties. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence given at the hearing and the documents produced, but the parties can be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence in reaching this decision. Retaliatory notice
- The most crucial issue for determination is the tenant’s application to set aside the landlord’s 90-day notice and so I deal with this issue first.
- For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- On 19 March 2026, the landlord gave the tenant a notice terminating the tenancy on 16 June 2026. The tenants claim that the notice is retaliatory and should be set aside.
- Karen Rimmer said that on 18 March 2025 she sent an email to Aaron Tomlin advising that the rent payment due at the end of the week might be delayed. She said that she thought she was doing the right thing by letting the landlord know, and was taking active steps to ensure the rent payment was in fact made on time.
- However she said that the very next day the landlord issued a 90 day notice terminating the tenancy.
- Ms Rimmer said that the notice was retaliatory as it was a punitive response to her advice that the rent might be delayed and was given in the context of an ongoing dispute over liability for a damaged gate (the liability for which I consider later in this decision).
- The landlord said that there have been ongoing issues with this tenancy as the tenants have not kept the property in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The landlord has issued multiple breach notices. They said that they issued a 90 day notice due to these ongoing issues.
- Having heard from the parties and having reviewed all of the evidence I do not consider that it is open to me to find that the landlord’s notice was retaliatory because: a. The notice appears to have been issued in the context of ongoing breaches and in response to advice by the tenant that rent might be delayed. I agree that tenant was being courteous by advising the landlord that rent might be late but she was not “exercising a right” as tenants have no right to delay rent payments. b. The notice was issued in the context of tenants disputing liability for the garage, but the tenants were not “exercising a right” in doing so, they were simply denying liability. c. The notice was not issued in response to a complaint against the landlord.
- It follows that the tenant’s claim is not proven and is dismissed.
- At the hearing I expressed some concern that if I was to find the tenants’ claim to set aside the 90-day notice not proven the tenants would have only four days to vacate, as the notice expires on 16 June 2026. The tenants are understandably concerned that it may be difficult for them to find a new tenancy at short notice.
- Although they were not obliged to do so, the landlords agreed that if the 90-day notice was not set aside they would agree to take back possession on 11 July 2026 (approximately one month from today) to allow the tenants some time to find a new property and vacate.
- I have therefore made an order extending the possession date to 11 July 2026. Gate
- 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 said that one of the tenants reversed into the automatic sliding gate across the entrance to the property causing damage.
- The landlord said that the gate cost over $5,000 repair and the landlord made a claim against their insurance policy and paid an excess of $750 which they seek to recover from the tenants. However at the hearing the landlord accepted that, as the tenancy agreement recorded an excess amount of $400, and they had not advised the tenants that there was now a new policy and a different excess, they could only recover the sum of $400.
- The damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The onus is therefore on the tenants to prove that the damage was not careless, as it was clearly not intentional.
- Hayden Rimmer explained that he was the person who had backed into the gate. I found his evidence to be honest and straight forward. He said that he got his car, pressed the remote, saw the gate open, checked his mirrors and began to reverse, focussing on the mirror closest to the side of the gate, when he hit the gate. He said that for some unknown reason it has started closing on its own. He said that he was not careless, and it was simply an accident, likely caused by the gate malfunctioning.
- The tenants said that they had experienced occasional issues with the gate before but assumed these were caused by bad weather and so did not mention it to the landlord. The tenants said further that the gate did not appear to be properly maintained as it was not regularly serviced. They said that they had contacted the gate contractor who said that they had only been out once to do work on the gate.
- The landlord produced evidence from previous tenants, one who said that they had not experienced any issues with the gate, and another who said that there had been an issue with the gate not closing properly, which had been rectified in a timely manner.
- The landlord also produced evidence from the gate contractor who could not confirm whether or how/why the gate might have malfunctioned.
- I do not consider that there has been any breach in the landlord’s obligations to maintain the gate. The landlord responded to maintenance issues raised by one of the previous tenants. The tenants did not raise any concerns about the function of the gate to the landlord and so the landlord had no reason to make any investigations. The gate appears to have been in good condition in the entry inspection photos.
- Automatic gates however do malfunction from time to time. I cannot determine whether the gate did in fact malfunction in this instance or not, but I consider that a careful tenant would have checked that the gate was fully open before reversing out of the driveway. The pictures show that the gate has a large dent, quite close to the middle, so the garage door must have closed some way and yet the tenant either began or continued reversing.
- In my view the tenant was careless by not waiting and checking that the gate had fully opened before reversing through the entrance to the driveway.
- The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the insurance excess disclosed in the tenancy agreement, and so I order compensation in the amount of $400.
- Although the order for compensation states that the compensation must be paid immediately, the parties may wish to consider whether this amount can instead be deducted from the bond by agreement at the conclusion of the tenancy. Breach of quiet enjoyment/harassment
- A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
- Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
- The tenants say that the landlord harassed them because the owner’s family lived in the same street and would watch the property and report to the landlord if the lawns were not mowed or the garden was untidy leading to breach notices being served.
- The tenants say that they felt constantly watched in their home and the breach notices were a cause of stress as they all have health issues and work commitments and it was not always possible for them to attend to the lawns/gardens immediately.
- The tenants also said that they thought it was likely that the same neighbour had reported that they had an unregistered/unwarranted car parked on the street, which led them to receive multiple fines.
- Mr Tomlin said that the property located in a new subdivision and all owners have entered into covenants to ensure that the grounds are kept reasonably clean and tidy. He said that tenancy agreement requires the tenants to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy.
- Mr Tomlin said that it was apparent from the very first inspection that property was not reasonably clean and tidy. He said that he did regular inspections, which are his obligation as a property manager. He explained that on one occasion he said to the tenants “the owner’s family live nearby and so they do see the state of the property” but that this statement was simply intended to impress upon the tenants need to comply with their obligations.
- The owner said that they had left all matters concerning this property to Mr Tomlin and had not visited the property or made any reports. The owner’s brother-in-law, who lives nearby, also denied making any reports to the landlord.
- The landlord denied reporting the tenants’ car to the council.
- Having reviewed all of the evidence and having heard from the parties I am not satisfied that tenants have proved that the landlord has interfered with their quiet enjoyment or harassed them. I make this finding because: a. The breach notices that were issued followed scheduled by inspections made by Mr Tomlin; b. While the breach notices may have been stressful for the tenants, they appear to have been issued due to legitimate concerns that the tenant’s were not complying with their obligations under the tenancy agreement; c. The number of breach notices were not excessive; d. There was no evidence that either the owner or their family had made any reports to Mr Tomlin; e. There was no evidence that the owner or their family had reported one of the tenant’s cars to the council.
- This claim is therefore not proven and is dismissed. Insurance policy
- A tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. The landlord must notify the tenant of any changes to the information provided, or if the premises are no longer insured. See s 45(2B) and (2C) RTA.
- Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $900.00. See section 45(2D) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- The tenants claim the landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy for the premises.
- The tenants said that the AMI policy referred to in the tenancy agreement had expired ($400 excess) and that the garage door was covered under the landlord’s new policy with Tower ($750 excess) but they were not told about the change and the tenancy agreement was not updated.
- Landlords are only required to provide a copy of their insurance policy if requested by the tenant. The tenants did not ask for a copy and so the landlord has not breached their obligations by not providing one.
- The failure to advise the tenants about the new excess was in my view a simple oversight and has led to the landlord’s compensation for the garage door damage excess to be limited to the excess set out in the tenancy agreement, rather than the actual amount paid.
- The breach was minor and unintentional, and I do not consider that there is any basis to make an award of exemplary damages. Failure to provide a copy of Body Corporate rules
- The tenants said that the landlord is in breach of clause 9h of the tenancy agreement which provides that if the premises is part of a unit title development, the landlord must provide them with a copy of the body corporate rules.
- The tenants say that the landlord did not provide them with a copy of the Body Corporate rules with the tenancy agreement.
- The landlord says that this is a standalone fee simple property. There is no body corporate. However as this is a new subdivision there are several straight- forward covenants in place regarding maintenance and lawns/gardens.
- The landlord said that the tenant is required to maintain the lawns and the garden under the tenancy agreement (section 3).
- Such covenants are fairly unusual in New Zealand and so I can understand the tenant’s confusion about possible additional rules that apply to the property. However the tenancy property is not party of a Body Corporate and there has been no breach by the landlord.
- This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
- Because the landlord has been the substantially successful party I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28.00.
- The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression. The tenants did seek an order for name suppression, but as they have not been the substantially successful party they are not entitled to an order for name suppression (see section 95A RTA).
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s3, s38(2), s38(3), s40(2), s45(2B), s45(2D), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s54(1), s54(2), s59, s90, s95A
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5486993?
The tribunal order states: The tenants’ application for an order setting aside the 90-day termination notice
How much money was awarded in case 5486993?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5486993?
The primary dispute was Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5486993?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13740875-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.