What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5037591?

The tribunal order states: Joe Pan and Tilly Chen Pan to pay Georgina May Cunningham $1,412.75 from

How much money was awarded in case 5037591?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,322.50 awarded to landlord; Tap: $63.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5037591?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5037591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11442438-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5037591?

The tribunal order states: Joe Pan and Tilly Chen Pan to pay Georgina May Cunningham $1,412.75 from

How much money was awarded in case 5037591?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,322.50 awarded to landlord; Tap: $63.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5037591?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5037591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11442438-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Coopworth Road, Jacks Point, Queenstown 9371 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5037591 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5037591 — net $1,412.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Painting	$1,322.50	Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Tap	$63.25	Repairs: Tap
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,412.75
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,412.75

Order

Joe Pan and Tilly Chen Pan to pay Georgina May Cunningham $1,412.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6515508-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Georgina May Cunningham: $1,412.75 Joe Pan and Tilly Chen Pan: $987.25

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 13 February 2025.
The tenants were assisted by an interpreter.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. All other claims by the landlord had been withdrawn at an earlier mediation hearing.
The tenants applied for the bond to be released and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy commenced on 11 June 2023 and ended on 10 October 2024.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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 to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
In this case, the parties have submitted documentary evidence. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

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. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $1,150.00 on each and every claim.
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:
The landlord says that walls in a bedroom were damaged. The damage was caused by the use of candles and candle wax. The bedroom had been used by the tenant as a commercial day spa. The candles had caused marks on the wall. The landlord obtained a report from an experienced building inspector. That report said that in the inspectors opinion “the source of the dark marks on the walls of the bedroom are consistent with soot and smoke from the burning of candles/ oil.” The report went to say that “consultation with a paint specialist be carried out as the preparation prior to painting must be adequate in order to prevent the dark marks from presenting through the new paint work. A sealer will most likely be required prior to the final coats of paint being applied.”
The tenants accepted that they had operated a day spa from the bedroom and that the wall had been marked as a result. The tenants’ concern was the quantum or amount of the claim.
The landlord provided a quote from JFS Limited. The quote sets out the work required as “Prime and seal to address soot damage in the room, then repaint the walls, ceilings and skirtings to match the existing colour.” The invoice amount is $1,322.50. The landlord said that she had received a second quote for a substantially greater amount.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The question for the Tribunal is whether the amount claimed is reasonable.
The insurance claim by the landlord was declined as the insurer said that the damage was residual in nature and accordingly not covered.
The tenants said that they had received a quote for $400.00 to $500.00 for the work. A copy of the quote was not provided by the tenants.
The evidence is such that I consider the claim by the landlord to be proven. The evidence of the building inspector was that more work than might normally be required to repaint a room would be required. The landlord has provided a quote for the work. I consider that it is more likely than not that the quote is for a reasonable amount.
The landlord says that a tap extension had been added to taps in both the bathroom and laundry by the tenants. The extension seems to allow the water flow to be directed in a 360 degree manner.
The tenants advised the landlord that the extensions could simply be pulled off at the end of the tenancy. When this was done, the landlord discovered that water was spraying over the wall. A plumber attended and the plumber’s invoice states, “Installed basin tap nozzle washers as required at a cost of $63.25”.
The tenants said that when they removed the extension, the tap operated correctly. The tenants also complained that they were not given the opportunity to repair the matter themselves.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount claimed for the repair is reasonable. There is no obligation on the landlord to allow a tenant to return to the premises after the tenancy has ended to complete repairs.
As Georgina May Cunningham has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenants to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants applied for name suppression. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the application by the tenants is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5037591 — net $1,412.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Painting	$1,322.50	Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Tap	$63.25	Repairs: Tap
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,412.75
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,412.75

Order

Joe Pan and Tilly Chen Pan to pay Georgina May Cunningham $1,412.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6515508-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Georgina May Cunningham: $1,412.75 Joe Pan and Tilly Chen Pan: $987.25

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 13 February 2025.
The tenants were assisted by an interpreter.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. All other claims by the landlord had been withdrawn at an earlier mediation hearing.
The tenants applied for the bond to be released and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy commenced on 11 June 2023 and ended on 10 October 2024.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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 to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
In this case, the parties have submitted documentary evidence. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

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. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $1,150.00 on each and every claim.
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:
The landlord says that walls in a bedroom were damaged. The damage was caused by the use of candles and candle wax. The bedroom had been used by the tenant as a commercial day spa. The candles had caused marks on the wall. The landlord obtained a report from an experienced building inspector. That report said that in the inspectors opinion “the source of the dark marks on the walls of the bedroom are consistent with soot and smoke from the burning of candles/ oil.” The report went to say that “consultation with a paint specialist be carried out as the preparation prior to painting must be adequate in order to prevent the dark marks from presenting through the new paint work. A sealer will most likely be required prior to the final coats of paint being applied.”
The tenants accepted that they had operated a day spa from the bedroom and that the wall had been marked as a result. The tenants’ concern was the quantum or amount of the claim.
The landlord provided a quote from JFS Limited. The quote sets out the work required as “Prime and seal to address soot damage in the room, then repaint the walls, ceilings and skirtings to match the existing colour.” The invoice amount is $1,322.50. The landlord said that she had received a second quote for a substantially greater amount.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The question for the Tribunal is whether the amount claimed is reasonable.
The insurance claim by the landlord was declined as the insurer said that the damage was residual in nature and accordingly not covered.
The tenants said that they had received a quote for $400.00 to $500.00 for the work. A copy of the quote was not provided by the tenants.
The evidence is such that I consider the claim by the landlord to be proven. The evidence of the building inspector was that more work than might normally be required to repaint a room would be required. The landlord has provided a quote for the work. I consider that it is more likely than not that the quote is for a reasonable amount.
The landlord says that a tap extension had been added to taps in both the bathroom and laundry by the tenants. The extension seems to allow the water flow to be directed in a 360 degree manner.
The tenants advised the landlord that the extensions could simply be pulled off at the end of the tenancy. When this was done, the landlord discovered that water was spraying over the wall. A plumber attended and the plumber’s invoice states, “Installed basin tap nozzle washers as required at a cost of $63.25”.
The tenants said that when they removed the extension, the tap operated correctly. The tenants also complained that they were not given the opportunity to repair the matter themselves.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount claimed for the repair is reasonable. There is no obligation on the landlord to allow a tenant to return to the premises after the tenancy has ended to complete repairs.
As Georgina May Cunningham has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenants to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants applied for name suppression. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the application by the tenants is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5037591 — Property damage at 24 Coopworth Road, Jacks Point, Queenstown 9371

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5037591 — Property damage at 24 Coopworth Road, Jacks Point, Queenstown 9371

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

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