What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5532758 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $6,466.07

How much money was awarded in case 5532758?

3 X Designer Light Fittings: $1,692.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $184.29 awarded to landlord; Repaint Cottage Interior Walls: $3,561.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5532758?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5532758?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13854723-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5532758 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $6,466.07

How much money was awarded in case 5532758?

3 X Designer Light Fittings: $1,692.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $184.29 awarded to landlord; Repaint Cottage Interior Walls: $3,561.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5532758?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5532758?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13854723-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

206 Tawa Road, Kumeu, RD 1, Kumeu 0891, cottage/minor Tenancy Tribunal Case 5532758 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5532758 — net $6,466.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$184.29	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
3 x designer light fittings	$1,692.00	3 x designer light fittings
Repairs: Repaint cottage interior walls	$3,561.78	Repairs: Repaint cottage interior walls
Exemplary Damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary Damages
Net award	$6,466.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,466.07

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5532758 — net $6,466.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$184.29	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
3 x designer light fittings	$1,692.00	3 x designer light fittings
Repairs: Repaint cottage interior walls	$3,561.78	Repairs: Repaint cottage interior walls
Exemplary Damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary Damages
Net award	$6,466.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,466.07

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $6,466.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$184.29 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 3 x designer light fittings$1,692.00 Repairs: Repaint cottage interior walls$3,561.78 Exemplary Damages$1000.00 Total award$6,466.07 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$6,466.07
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenant did not attend. The tenant sent an email on 26 June 2026 saying that he had work commitments on the full day hearing scheduled to hear his application and the landlord’s cross application.
I requested information from the tenant as to why he could not attend the hearing. I advised that once I received this information, I will consider his request to adjourn. The tenant did not respond further, and I did not adjourn the hearing. The tenant failed to appear.
The parties were advised on 28 May 2026 of today’s hearing. The tenant did not advise the Tribunal; for a month that the date was unsuitable, furthermore did not provide any supporting documentation for the adjournment request.
The Tribunal had allocated a full day to hear these claims, requiring the need of a court room, and cost of court staff and an adjudicator.
Section 92(1) of the Residential tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) gives the Tribunal discretion to adjourn a hearing, but only where there is a sufficient basic to do so. In this case the tenant has not provided any information to support the request for an adjournment. Accordingly, the request for the adjournment is declined. The RTA allows the Tribunal to hear and determine the matter in the absence of a party if satisfied that the party had notice of the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant had notice of the hearing.
The tenants’ claims were that the landlord had breached healthy homes standards relating to heating, guttering, and insulation. The tenant also claimed that the landlord did not repair the kitchen and bathroom furniture after cyclone Gabrielle had caused damage to them. The property had a rat infestation and a problem with the septic tank. The tenant sought damages for the landlords’ alleged breaches of the RTA and the tenancy agreement.
As the tenant did not attend the hearing, his claims are dismissed.
The landlord attended the hearing, and I have considered his claims based on the evidence provided.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Standard of Proof:
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
For a landlord to succeed in a claim for damages, it is essential that they provide evidence to support their claim. The Tribunal must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage occurred during the tenancy, that it was caused by the tenant (or someone the tenant is responsible for), and that it is more than fair wear and tear. Evidence can include photographs, inspection reports, invoices, or witness statements. In this case, the landlord has not provided any supporting evidence. Without such proof, the Tribunal cannot grant an order for damages.
This approach is consistent with the Tribunal’s general practice and the standard of proof required in civil proceedings.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 17 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $184.29 owing at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the rent arrears.

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 was caused during the tenancy: -Repainting the internal walls with bright red, green and grey paint. -Unauthorised electrical installation of power socket on bathroom wall. -Septic tank clogged with fats and oils. -Repair ceiling. -Designer lamp fittings and shades damaged and removed.
The tenancy commenced on 18 April 2021. Just prior to the tenant taking over the tenancy the landlord had a new kitchen put in and had fully repainted the interior of the property in a soft neutral colour. It is not disputed that the property was damaged in February 2023 by Cyclone Gabrielle. I have not been provided with documentation as to the damage and repairs after the Cyclone on the property. Repainting Costs
The landlord claims the cost of repainting the interior of the property after the tenant repainted the internal walls in fire engine red, grey, and dark green without the landlord’s knowledge or permission. The landlord states that the repainting by the tenant was done poorly and the colours were extreme.
The landlord has provided photographs showing the condition of the property at the start and end of the tenancy, which support his claim regarding the poor quality and unsuitability of the repainting.
The landlord has obtained a quote for $5,936.00 to remedy and repaint the interior of the property.
I am satisfied that the quote is from a reputable contractor and accurately reflects the work required to restore the property to a reasonable standard.
Based on the evidence, including photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, the current condition of the interior paintwork is poor. The repainting carried out by the tenant was of a low standard, with extreme colours and visible defects. The property cannot be reasonably maintained or re-let in its current state, and the condition of the paintwork is not consistent with the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Given the poor condition of the paintwork and the need to return the property to a reasonable standard, I am satisfied that the work must be done and that the quote provided is sufficient evidence of the likely cost of the necessary repairs. Relevant Law and Depreciation
Section 40(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires the tenant to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy and not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises. Section 42(1) prohibits the tenant from making alterations, including painting, without the landlord’s prior written consent.
When awarding compensation for replacement or repair, the Tribunal must take into account depreciation and betterment. The Tribunal’s depreciation guidelines indicate that the expected life of interior paint is generally between 5 and 14.4 years, depending on the room and usage.
In this case, the landlord renovated and fully repainted the property in 2021, just prior to the start of the tenancy. Given the relatively recent repainting, but also allowing for some wear and tear, I consider a deduction for depreciation is appropriate. I have applied a 40% deduction for depreciation to the quoted cost.
Calculation: Quoted cost to repaint: $5,936.00. Less 40% depreciation: $2,374.40 Amount awarded: $3,561.78.
The tenant is ordered to pay the landlord $3,561.78 for the cost of repainting the interior of the property, being the quoted cost less a 40% deduction for depreciation. Unauthorised electrical work:
The landlord claims that the tenant installed a power socket on the bathroom wall without the landlord’s permission. Section 42(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 prohibits the tenant from making any renovation, alteration, or addition to the premises without the landlord’s prior written consent.
While the evidence supports that the tenant installed the power socket without consent, the landlord has not provided any evidence of the cost to remove the unauthorised work or to reinstate the wall. In the absence of evidence of actual costs incurred or likely to be incurred, the Tribunal cannot make an award for compensation or damages. Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for costs relating to the unauthorised power socket is dismissed due to lack of evidence of loss. Ceiling repairs:
The landlord claims that the tenant has damages the ceiling due to excessive steam from the commercial dishwasher, causing discolouration of the ceiling wood.
The evidence supports that there was damage to the ceiling, the landlord has not provided any evidence of the cost to repair the ceiling.
In the absence of evidence of actual costs incurred or likely to be incurred, the Tribunal cannot make an award for compensation or damages. Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for costs relating to the ceiling are dismissed due to lack of evidence of loss. Damage to Septic Tank
The landlord claims that the tenant caused damage to the septic tank during the tenancy.
The landlord states that the septic tank was functioning properly before the tenancy commenced but required repairs and eventual replacement during the tenancy. The landlord attributes the damage to the tenant’s use of the kitchen for commercial food preparation and cleaning, including the disposal of oil and fat. The tenant operated a food truck, coffee truck, and BBQ truck, and used the kitchen at the property for food preparation and cleaning.
The landlord engaged Scopic Drainage and Civil Limited to carry out the repair work. The company provided a report stating that the septic tank had blockages with fat and oils at a higher level than normal.
Section 40(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the tenant must not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the premises. Section 49B sets out the allocation of responsibility for damage during a tenancy. The landlord must prove that the damage is not fair wear and tear and that it occurred in circumstances described in section 49B(1)(b).
The landlord does not know the age of the septic tank but states it was working properly before the tenancy. The tenant used the kitchen for commercial food preparation and cleaning, which could potentially increase the risk of fat and oil entering the septic system.
However, there is no direct evidence that the tenant’s actions, rather than the age or condition of the septic tank, were the cause of the damage. The landlord has not provided evidence of the condition or maintenance history of the septic tank prior to the tenancy, nor evidence that the tenant was specifically responsible for the disposal of fat and oil in a manner that would cause such damage.
The age and prior condition of the septic tank are unknown, and it is possible that the damage could be attributed to fair wear and tear or to the age and condition of the system.
While the evidence shows that the septic tank was blocked with fat and oils, there is insufficient evidence to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant’s actions were the cause of the damage. The landlord has not proven that the damage was not fair wear and tear or that it was caused by the tenant’s intentional or careless actions as required by section 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for the cost of repairing or replacing the septic tank is dismissed. Designer Light Fittings and Shades:
The landlord claims the cost of replacing designer light fittings and shades that were installed in the kitchen, dining, and lounge areas. These fittings were specified in the tenancy agreement and are clearly visible in the pre-tenancy photographs. During the tenancy, the original designer light fittings and shades were removed by the tenant and replaced with unauthorised alternatives, without the landlord’s consent.
The landlord questioned the tenant about the removal of the original fittings and was told by the tenant that they had been taken down because they were broken. The landlord expected that the original or equivalent fittings would be reinstated at the end of the tenancy. This did not occur, and the landlord has provided evidence of the cost to replace the designer light fittings.
Section 42(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a tenant must not make any renovation, alteration, or addition to the premises except in accordance with the tenancy agreement or with the prior written consent of the landlord. Section 40(1)(e)(ii) also requires the tenant, on termination of the tenancy, to remove all goods and leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and in substantially the same condition as at the start of the tenancy, fair wear and tear excepted.
The tenant was not authorised to remove the landlord’s designer light fittings and failed to reinstate them or provide replacements of equivalent quality. The landlord is entitled to recover the reasonable cost of replacing the designer light fittings and shades.
The tenant is ordered to pay the landlord the sum of $1692.00 being the reasonable cost of replacing the designer light fittings and shades as evidenced by the landlord’s quote. Rent during repairs:
The landlord has claimed for loss of rent after the end of the tenancy, on the basis that repairs were required due to the tenant’s breach of obligations. Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord may be entitled to compensation for actual loss of rent if the property could not be re-let while necessary repairs were carried out as a result of the tenant’s breach.
However, in this case, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the repairs actually prevented the property from being re-let, or that there was any period where the property was uninhabitable and could not be tenanted due to the required work. The claim is based on an assumption rather than evidence of actual loss.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for loss of rent is declined. Exemplary Damages – Unauthorised Alterations and Other Breaches
The landlord seeks exemplary damages for a series of breaches by the tenant, including carrying out unauthorised alterations to the property without the landlord’s consent. Specifically, the tenant made changes to the light fittings, repainted the interior in unauthorised colours, and installed a power socket in the bathroom wall.
The tenant did not seek or obtain the landlord’s written consent for any of these alterations, as required by section 42(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. In addition, the landlord claims that the tenant exceeded the number of people and vehicles allowed on the property, in breach of the tenancy agreement.
Section 42(1) of the Act provides that a tenant must not affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition, except in accordance with the tenancy agreement or with the prior written consent of the landlord.
Section 40(3A) (e) provides that it is an unlawful act for a tenant to fail to ensure that the number of residents does not exceed the maximum allowed under the tenancy agreement.
Section 42B (6) provides that it is an unlawful act for a tenant to fail to reinstate the premises at the end of the tenancy following a minor change.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and deter intentional breaches of the Act. Under section 109(3), the Tribunal must consider: •The intent of the tenant in committing the unlawful act. •The effect of the unlawful act. •The interests of the landlord. •The public interest; and •Whether it is just to make the award.
In this case, the evidence shows that the tenant intentionally made significant alterations to the property without consent, including changing light fittings, repainting the interior, and installing a power socket. These were not minor or accidental breaches, but deliberate actions taken without reference to the landlord’s rights or the requirements of the Act.
The tenant also failed to reinstate the premises at the end of the tenancy. The effect of these actions was to leave the landlord with a property that required substantial remedial work before it could be re-let, and to undermine the landlord’s ability to control the standard and condition of the property.
Having regard to the intent of the tenant, the impact on the landlord, and the need to uphold the public interest in compliance with tenancy law, I am satisfied that an order for exemplary damages is appropriate.
However, as there are multiple breaches relating to unauthorised alterations, only one award of exemplary damages will be made for these breaches, in accordance with the principle that only one order should be made for a breach of a particular section.
I am awarding the landlord $1000.00 in exemplary damages for failing to reinstate premises at end of tenancy following a minor change under section 42B (6) RTA. Filing Fee:
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5532758 — Property damage at 206 Tawa Road, Kumeu, RD 1, Kumeu 0891, cottage/minor

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5532758 — Property damage at 206 Tawa Road, Kumeu, RD 1, Kumeu 0891, cottage/minor

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions