What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4959714?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4959714?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4959714?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4959714?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11838088-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4959714?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4959714?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4959714?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4959714?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11838088-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Plympton Street, Brooklands, New Plymouth 4310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4959714 — Property damage

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing with her representative. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
This is an adjourned hearing to consider landlord claims for compensation.
On 19 March 2025 I issued an order determining the tenant’s claims and some of the landlord’s claims (the ‘March Order’). I agreed to adjourn part of the landlord’s application so the landlord could obtain and file further details of the amounts of compensation sought for damage. The landlord provided the detail within the required timescale and the hearing therefore could proceed today.
I must consider landlord claims for: a. Damage to a porch; b. Damage to a window in the master bedroom; and c. Damage to glass in the front door. Civil law standards
The Tenancy Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. This is referred to in full in my earlier decision in this case (see reasons 5-8 of the March Order). I do not repeat it again here. Liability for damage – the law
The 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 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. Damage to the porch
The landlord says that the tenant’s child damaged the porch and seeks $337.84.
It surprisingly transpired after a full discussion of this issue that the damage concerned was not actually caused to the property that the tenant had rented but related to the porch on the landlord’s own unit which is also situated on the same section.
The RTA deals with damage to the ‘premises’. ‘Premises’ are the premises subject to the tenancy agreement and this does not extend to other premises (whether or not they are owned by the same landlord and whether they are adjoining units or on the same section or not). Because the damage that the landlord says is done is not at the premises the tenant rented the RTA does not apply to this damage and I do not have jurisdiction.
The claim is dismissed. Window main bedroom
The landlord says the tenant broke the main bedroom window glass.
At the previous hearing the tenant said that the landlord had thrown stones at that window causing it to break and this noted in my reasons in the March Order at paragraph 130.
The landlord today says that she did not throw stones at the bedroom window.
At the previous hearing the landlord admitted to throwing part of a brick through the kitchen window. I found it more likely than not in the March Order that the landlord had thrown stones at the property as alleged by the tenant (see reason 72 of the March Order).
Given the tumultuous relationship between the parties, as set out in full in the March Order, and the past proven behaviour and findings relating to stone throwing I am not satisfied that it is sufficiently proven that this is damage that the tenant has caused during the course of the tenancy.
I do not find that the landlord has sufficiently proven the tenant is liable for the damage. The claim is dismissed. Glass in door
The landlord says that the glass in the front door broke because the tenant slammed it.
The landlord says there are no photographs or any other probative evidence (such as an inspection report) to show the condition of the glass in the door at the start of the tenancy or of the glass in the door being broken at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says that the door may be original in this 1950s former state home but she is not sure if work had been done on it more recently.
In considering the evidence presented to me, without any proof of an ingoing inspection report or photographs to show the condition of the door window at the start of the tenancy or the end of the tenancy I find it is not proven that the tenant caused this damage.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed.
I note that even if it was proven that damage had occurred and the tenant was liable it would be impossible to tell from the invoice provided (other than the material cost) how much it cost the landlord to repair the damage to the door because it is mixed up with work done to a kitchen window (which is damage not claimed for) and damage to the bedroom window above, which I have dismissed. The Tribunal does not guess. Suppression and filing fee
I dealt with the filing fee in the March Order.
I declined to award the landlord name suppression in the March Order and she has had no additional success today to support the making of such an award. Suppression of the landlord’s identifying details are declined.
The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing with her representative. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
This is an adjourned hearing to consider landlord claims for compensation.
On 19 March 2025 I issued an order determining the tenant’s claims and some of the landlord’s claims (the ‘March Order’). I agreed to adjourn part of the landlord’s application so the landlord could obtain and file further details of the amounts of compensation sought for damage. The landlord provided the detail within the required timescale and the hearing therefore could proceed today.
I must consider landlord claims for: a. Damage to a porch; b. Damage to a window in the master bedroom; and c. Damage to glass in the front door. Civil law standards
The Tenancy Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. This is referred to in full in my earlier decision in this case (see reasons 5-8 of the March Order). I do not repeat it again here. Liability for damage – the law
The 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 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. Damage to the porch
The landlord says that the tenant’s child damaged the porch and seeks $337.84.
It surprisingly transpired after a full discussion of this issue that the damage concerned was not actually caused to the property that the tenant had rented but related to the porch on the landlord’s own unit which is also situated on the same section.
The RTA deals with damage to the ‘premises’. ‘Premises’ are the premises subject to the tenancy agreement and this does not extend to other premises (whether or not they are owned by the same landlord and whether they are adjoining units or on the same section or not). Because the damage that the landlord says is done is not at the premises the tenant rented the RTA does not apply to this damage and I do not have jurisdiction.
The claim is dismissed. Window main bedroom
The landlord says the tenant broke the main bedroom window glass.
At the previous hearing the tenant said that the landlord had thrown stones at that window causing it to break and this noted in my reasons in the March Order at paragraph 130.
The landlord today says that she did not throw stones at the bedroom window.
At the previous hearing the landlord admitted to throwing part of a brick through the kitchen window. I found it more likely than not in the March Order that the landlord had thrown stones at the property as alleged by the tenant (see reason 72 of the March Order).
Given the tumultuous relationship between the parties, as set out in full in the March Order, and the past proven behaviour and findings relating to stone throwing I am not satisfied that it is sufficiently proven that this is damage that the tenant has caused during the course of the tenancy.
I do not find that the landlord has sufficiently proven the tenant is liable for the damage. The claim is dismissed. Glass in door
The landlord says that the glass in the front door broke because the tenant slammed it.
The landlord says there are no photographs or any other probative evidence (such as an inspection report) to show the condition of the glass in the door at the start of the tenancy or of the glass in the door being broken at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says that the door may be original in this 1950s former state home but she is not sure if work had been done on it more recently.
In considering the evidence presented to me, without any proof of an ingoing inspection report or photographs to show the condition of the door window at the start of the tenancy or the end of the tenancy I find it is not proven that the tenant caused this damage.
For this reason, the claim is dismissed.
I note that even if it was proven that damage had occurred and the tenant was liable it would be impossible to tell from the invoice provided (other than the material cost) how much it cost the landlord to repair the damage to the door because it is mixed up with work done to a kitchen window (which is damage not claimed for) and damage to the bedroom window above, which I have dismissed. The Tribunal does not guess. Suppression and filing fee
I dealt with the filing fee in the March Order.
I declined to award the landlord name suppression in the March Order and she has had no additional success today to support the making of such an award. Suppression of the landlord’s identifying details are declined.
The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4959714 — Property damage at 11 Plympton Street, Brooklands, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4959714 — Property damage at 11 Plympton Street, Brooklands, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions