What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5121728?

The tribunal order states: Barry Hutchins to pay Udy Realty Limited as agent for Sally Newby $508.12

How much money was awarded in case 5121728?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Hole In Master Bedroom: $117.88 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtain: $38.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5121728?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5121728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11950629-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5121728?

The tribunal order states: Barry Hutchins to pay Udy Realty Limited as agent for Sally Newby $508.12

How much money was awarded in case 5121728?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Hole In Master Bedroom: $117.88 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtain: $38.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5121728?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5121728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11950629-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 56 Glencoe Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5121728 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5121728 — net $508.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace furnishings: carpet	$230.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Repairs: hole in master bedroom	$117.88	Repairs: hole in master bedroom
Repair: hole in main bathroom wall	$86.25	Repair: hole in main bathroom wall
Key replacement	$8.00	Key replacement
Replace furnishings: Curtain	$38.99	Replace furnishings: Curtain
Net award	$508.12
Bond	$1,020.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$508.12

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord claimed specifically for repairs to main bathroom wall ($86.25), carpet replacement in one bedroom ($599.00), holes in bedroom door ($117.88), replacement curtains in one bedroom ($38.99) and deadbolt key cutting ($8.00). At the hearing, the tenant did not dispute the costs for the holes in the bedroom door, the replacement curtains, and the deadbolt key cutting.

These amounts are therefore awarded.

I consider the claimed amounts for the carpet and main bathroom wall further below.

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 claims that the carpet in one of the rooms was damaged during the tenancy by several dark stains. The landlord claims for the cost of carpet replacement of $599.00 and has provided photographs (both pre and post tenancy) together with an invoice. The landlord further advises that insurance was unavailable as each stain was considered a separate event. The landlord submits that the carpet was estimated to be around seven years old, although this is disputed by the tenant who estimated it more likely to be around 10-15 years old.

I am satisfied that some carpet staining was caused during the tenancy, however, to reflect reasonable wear and tear and the likely age of the carpet (although difficult to age precisely), I have reduced the amount awarded to $230.00.

In addition, the landlord claims for damage to the main bathroom wall – specifically for repairs to a hole totalling $86.25. The tenant advises that the hole was caused by a linoleum installer and has provided photographs that prove the linoleum was installed a considerable amount of time after the bathroom was renovated. The landlord says that they had not been advised of that until the hearing and that they had previously been advised that the damage was caused by the size of the vanity.

I have received insufficient evidence to prove the landlord’s contractor caused the damage. I find therefore that it was more likely than not caused during the tenancy by the tenant.

In summary, the following damage was caused during the tenancy: carpet staining and bathroom hole. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Because Udy Realty Limited as agent for Sally Newby has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 10 June 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5121728 — net $508.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace furnishings: carpet	$230.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Repairs: hole in master bedroom	$117.88	Repairs: hole in master bedroom
Repair: hole in main bathroom wall	$86.25	Repair: hole in main bathroom wall
Key replacement	$8.00	Key replacement
Replace furnishings: Curtain	$38.99	Replace furnishings: Curtain
Net award	$508.12
Bond	$1,020.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$508.12

Order

Barry Hutchins to pay Udy Realty Limited as agent for Sally Newby $508.12 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,020.00 (5163727-011) immediately apportioned as follows: Udy Realty Limited as agent for Sally Newby: $508.12 Barry Hutchins: $511.88

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claimed specifically for repairs to main bathroom wall ($86.25), carpet replacement in one bedroom ($599.00), holes in bedroom door ($117.88), replacement curtains in one bedroom ($38.99) and deadbolt key cutting ($8.00). At the hearing, the tenant did not dispute the costs for the holes in the bedroom door, the replacement curtains, and the deadbolt key cutting.
These amounts are therefore awarded.
I consider the claimed amounts for the carpet and main bathroom wall further below.

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 claims that the carpet in one of the rooms was damaged during the tenancy by several dark stains. The landlord claims for the cost of carpet replacement of $599.00 and has provided photographs (both pre and post tenancy) together with an invoice. The landlord further advises that insurance was unavailable as each stain was considered a separate event. The landlord submits that the carpet was estimated to be around seven years old, although this is disputed by the tenant who estimated it more likely to be around 10-15 years old.
I am satisfied that some carpet staining was caused during the tenancy, however, to reflect reasonable wear and tear and the likely age of the carpet (although difficult to age precisely), I have reduced the amount awarded to $230.00.
In addition, the landlord claims for damage to the main bathroom wall – specifically for repairs to a hole totalling $86.25. The tenant advises that the hole was caused by a linoleum installer and has provided photographs that prove the linoleum was installed a considerable amount of time after the bathroom was renovated. The landlord says that they had not been advised of that until the hearing and that they had previously been advised that the damage was caused by the size of the vanity.
I have received insufficient evidence to prove the landlord’s contractor caused the damage. I find therefore that it was more likely than not caused during the tenancy by the tenant.
In summary, the following damage was caused during the tenancy: carpet staining and bathroom hole. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because Udy Realty Limited as agent for Sally Newby has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 10 June 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5121728 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 56 Glencoe Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5121728 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 56 Glencoe Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions