What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5523524 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5523524?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Monies Held For Final Water Bill Ref…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $616.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5523524?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5523524?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13902619-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5523524 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5523524?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Monies Held For Final Water Bill Ref…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $616.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5523524?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5523524?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13902619-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5523524 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5523524 — net $947.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Upstairs bathroom vanity replacement	$616.95		Repairs: Upstairs bathroom vanity replacement
Repairs: Laminate flooring repair	$402.50		Repairs: Laminate flooring repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Monies held for final water bill refunded		$100.00	Monies held for final water bill refunded
Total award	$1,047.45	$100.00
Net award	$947.45
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$947.45

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5523524 — net $947.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Upstairs bathroom vanity replacement	$616.95		Repairs: Upstairs bathroom vanity replacement
Repairs: Laminate flooring repair	$402.50		Repairs: Laminate flooring repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Monies held for final water bill refunded		$100.00	Monies held for final water bill refunded
Total award	$1,047.45	$100.00
Net award	$947.45
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$947.45

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord] $947.45 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord]: $947.45 [The tenant/s]: $1,652.55

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 15 July 2026. The landlord was represented by its property manager. The tenant is self-represented.
The tenant and the Tribunal were assisted by the services of a mandarin interpreter.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 landlord has made claims for the cost of the repair of the following damage, which it claims resulted from the tenants, or persons in the premise with the tenant’s consent, careless use during the tenancy: a. Upstairs bathroom vanity; and b. Laminate flooring in bedroom. Laminate flooring stain
The parties confirmed the premise was fully renovated prior to the start of the tenancy.
The tenant confirmed the damage to the laminate flooring occurred during the tenancy. However, she claims she should not be held liable for the cost incurred by the landlord to repair it at the end of the tenancy because: a. The property manager told her the landlord would cover the cost of the repair; b. She had not been provided with an invoice for the repair cost or any insurance claim information until today’s hearing, because the property manager had forgotten to attach the invoice to 6 June 2025 email; and c. The repair has not been done as soon as the damage was found two years ago.
The landlord confirmed: a. She was not made aware the accepted quote for the floor repair was not attached to the 6 June 2025 email and had the tenant raised this issue, she would have resent the attachment; b. The property manager explained to the tenant that if the entire floor had to be repaired she could make use of the landlord’s insurance but the tenant would still bel responsible for any insurance excess incurred as a result of the claim. Since the litigation commenced, the property manager has become aware the tenant misunderstood this and took this to mean the landlord would pay for the full repair. This misunderstanding is likely to have been the result of the language barrier the parties faced, with the tenant having limited understanding of English and the landlord not speaking any Mandarin ; c. There was no insurance claim made at the time the damage was found and accepted by the tenant because the landlord had been told the entire floor covering would need to be replaced and so the owner decided to leave the repair until the end of the tenancy in case further floorcovering damage was done by the tenant’s teenage son; d. The landlord has subsequently found that it is not worth making an insurance claim for this repair as the section of the flooring in the corner will be patch repaired using some laminate flooring the body corporate had that matches the existing flooring and the cost of the repair is less than the costs associated with making an insurance claim ; e. The landlord does not have an invoice for the completed flooring repair as the work is still to be completed. The landlord has provided a quote and proof that the quote has been accepted and the contractor is waiting to get agreed access from the current tenant to do the work.
I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy by the tenant or her son spilling something coloured on the laminate flooring and not cleaning it up before it soaked into and stained the laminate flooring. I am also satisfied that the flooring was new at the start of the tenancy and is still in excellent condition, but for the stain that can and will be patched repaired. Its estimated life span is more than the 5 years it had been in place at the time of the careless damage.
I am also satisfied the tenant has seen the accepted quote at today’s hearing and that she understands the contractor is in the process of getting an agreed time to carry out the repair.
I do not accept the tenant was unaware of the cost of the repair, as this cost was emailed to her on 6 June 2025. She could have asked for the quote to be resent and did not.
I do not accept the tenant has been disadvantaged by not seeing the agreed quote until today’s hearing, nor that she has not had time to consider the quote and formulate a defence to it. She was aware of the damage and was sent the quote amount on 6 June 2025. The landlord has taken time to complete the repair after the end of the tenancy (31 March 2026) as it needed to be sure the entire floor did not need to be replaced, and patching would be a viable option with the laminate the body corporate has found. The tenant was well aware of this claim against her and has had ample time to formulate a defence to her liability for the cost of the repair of damage she accepted occurred during her tenancy that is not fair wear and tear.
I find the tenant liable for the $420.50 cost the landlord has incurred to remedy the careless damage to the laminate flooring caused by her or her son during the tenancy. Upstairs bathroom vanity
The landlord provided inspection report photographs that prove the upstairs bathroom vanity was replaced with a new one in mid-February 2025 and that by 2 June 2025 the vanity was cracked on the side and top of the draws from new water damage that was the result of the tenant’s son flicking water all over the vanity when he washed his hands and not wiping the pooled water off the vanity after use.
The landlord argued that a tenant should wipe down a vanity after use, as keeping bathroom surfaces dry and clean is considered part of routine maintenance and stops water pooling on or around a vanity seeping into the wood or laminate over time, causing it to swell or rot. Further, the landlord expressed concern that when the tap in this bathroom has leaked previously, the tenant had not reported the leak or resulting damage, which led to the first vanity replacement in February 2025. Then the tenant failed to report the damage to the new vanity as soon as it occurred and did nothing to mitigate any further damage.
I am satisfied the landlord’s evidence proves that on the balance of probabilities, the tenant’s son’s careless use of the small particle board vanity led to water damage, that there were no leaks that caused the damage, that the tenant’s failure to report the water damage as soon as it was visible had led to the vanity needing to be replaced instead of repaired, and that the tenant is liable for the replacement costs incurred by the landlord to replace the vanity that was damaged in less than 4 months after installation.
The tenant argued the vanity was faulty and should be replaced under manufacturer’s warranty. The landlord’s contractor has confirmed to it that the damage is from a failure to wipe down the vanity after use. I am satisfied that particle board is highly susceptible to water damage and swelling, and a reasonable tenant is expected to wipe up water spills after use. When the tenant’s son failed to do this, and left water to sit and rot the wood, the damage is considered careless damage.
The tenant claims this damage is fair wear and tear and her son should have been able to wash his hands without wiping up the pooled water over the vanity. Fair wear and tear are the natural and gradual deterioration of a property that occurs through normal, everyday use. For example, a vanity wearing out over many years of normal use, or seals naturally leaking due to age, not water damage that could have been avoided by the wiping down of the pooled water after use on a small particle board vanity.
I find the tenant liable for the damage to the new vanity caused by her son’s careless use and failure to regularly wipe down the vanity to prevent water pooling on top of the draws and down the side of the vanity causing cracks.
The landlord has produced invoices for the cost of the installation and purchase of a new vanity.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
I find that depreciation for the laminate patch repair and installation/purchase of a new vanity (that was 4 months old at the time the damage was first noticed) is not appropriate in all the circumstances. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.
The tenant also applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded with her claim. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct in this matter, in that she has failed to report noticeable damage to the landlord as soon as she became aware of it and took no care to maintain the premise by wiping up spilt liquid that damaged the flooring before it stained irreparably and not wiping down the vanity after each use so water did not pool on it and cause water damage. The tenant refuses to accept that she has a statutory obligation under s40(1)(d) of the RTA to “notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs”. She continually reiterated during the hearing that it was the landlord’s responsibility to inspect for damage every 3 to 4 months and address any damage found and that this negated her s40(1)(d) of the RTA obligation to report any such damage outside of these routine property inspections. I find that public interest in tenant conduct such as this outweighs any potential detriment to the tenant of having her name published.
The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed for the reasons set out above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5523524 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5523524 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions