What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5163371?

The tribunal order states: Taryn Lara Wrath and Allan Wrath to pay Jayne Louisa Bennett and Robyn

How much money was awarded in case 5163371?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $305.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $16.11 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $351.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5163371?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5163371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11875802-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5163371?

The tribunal order states: Taryn Lara Wrath and Allan Wrath to pay Jayne Louisa Bennett and Robyn

How much money was awarded in case 5163371?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $305.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $16.11 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $351.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5163371?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5163371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11875802-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Greenview Lane, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5163371 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5163371 — net $1,129.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lightbulbs	$30.00	Lightbulbs
Blue pot replacement	$400.00	Blue pot replacement
Blind repairs	$305.00	Blind repairs
Repair of shower head	$16.11	Repair of shower head
HRV pipe repair	$351.00	HRV pipe repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,129.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,129.11

Order

Taryn Lara Wrath and Allan Wrath to pay Jayne Louisa Bennett and Robyn Kay Lawson $1,129.11 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

1 Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. Mrs Bennett stated that she had the authority to represent Mrs Lawson at today’s hearing.

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

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for the tenants’ use. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
At the beginning of today’s hearing the tenants accepted that they ought to pay for the replacement lightbulbs – they had intended to have them replaced and had not done so in the rush of moving out of the premises.
The cost of the replacement lightbulbs was proven.
I am dismissing the landlord’s claim for removing watermarks on the walls. Tenants are required to leave premises reasonably clean, not perfectly clean. I also note that the tenants had had the premises professionally cleaned when they vacated the premises.
One of the more contentious issues at today’s hearing was the landlord’s claim for the cost of replacing a blue garden pot which had been broken when Mrs Wrath’s father moved it, and the cost of replacing the nikau palm which had been in the pot when the tenants commenced the tenancy. These are both chattels.
I am dismissing the claim for the nikau palm. It is common for plants situated in a pot to die and I do not think the tenants ought to be responsible for replacing it.
At today’s hearing the tenants stated that they ought not to have to pay the cost of replacing the blue pot. They stated that they had accepted the pot at the beginning of the tenancy as a favour to the landlords and that it had been broken accidentally by Mrs Wrath’s father.
At today’s hearing Mr Wrath stated that they had used the pot to plant plants after the nikau palm had died. Given that the tenants used the pot they are obliged to have left it at the premises at the end of the tenancy, as provided by s40(1)(e)(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mrs Wrath stated that her research suggests that tenants do not have to pay compensation for damage that has been caused accidentally, rather than carelessly.
However, the Tenancy Tribunal is obliged to follow decisions made by higher courts.
In Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 154, Justice Walker referred to accidental and careless damage as follows “... accidental damage generally encompasses damage arising from the insured’s party’s carelessness or negligence ...”. He has linked accidental and careless damage, which in turn indicates that whether the damage is caused accidentally or carelessly, landlords are entitled to compensation from tenants.
In Tekoa Trust v Stewart [2017] DCR 628, Judge D G Smith addressed the question of whether the tenant’s actions were “an accidental or careless act” or “an intentional and deliberate act”. The use of “or” reflects that the Judge viewed “careless” and “accidental” acts as interchangeable terms when looking at the difference between these acts and “intentional and deliberate” acts.
As stated earlier, I am obliged to follow decisions made by higher courts and so I am satisfied that “careless damage” in the Act encompasses “accidental damage”.
Having made this finding that the tenants are responsible for compensating the landlords for the blue pot, I am reducing the $799.00 claimed for the pot to $400.00. I do so because the pot was at least 15 years old and although purportedly of good quality, there was no real evidence as to how long pots such as these should last in tenanted premises. I have estimated it to have had approximately half its useful life.

Are the tenants 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 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.
The landlord makes a claim for the repair of the HRV pipe, repair of three blinds’ cords, and repair of the shower head. I accept that none of these claims were covered by the landlords’ insurer.
The tenants say they did not damage the HRV pipe which is located in the attic which is used as a storage area.
However, I am satisfied that the tenants ought to pay the cost of the HRV pipe repair.
I say this for reasons that include: (a) I accept the serviceman’s evidence that when he serviced the HRV during the tenancy, the pipe was intact; and (b) The tenants say they stored suitcases/boxes in the attic which they removed at the end of the tenancy; and (c) I note that the HRV serviceman stated that it looked like something had been dragged over the pipe causing it to disconnect; and (d) Logically, given the findings in (a) and (b) above, the pipe was most likely disconnected when items were removed from the storage area by the tenants; and (e) As in my findings regarding the blue garden pot, whether the pipe was dislocated accidentally or carelessly makes no difference as to whether tenants are liable to pay the cost of repair.
The cost of repair was proven by an invoice.
With regard to the cost of replacing three blinds’ cords, the tenants say they are willing to pay the cost of replacing the cord for the blind in the lounge, but do not accept responsibility for the broken cord in the ensuite and the jammed cord in the blind in the rumpus room. They say they did not use the blind in the ensuite and that once the cord for the blind in the rumpus room became difficult to use, they stopped using that blind as well.
The tenants also say that the blinds are flimsy and that any issue was due to fair wear and tear.
I am dismissing the argument that the cords’ issues were due to fair wear and tear. I say this because I accept that the blinds were approximately 6 months old at the beginning of the tenancy. More importantly, there were blinds covering all windows of the house and there were no issues recorded with any of the rest of the cords.
I find that the tenants are responsible for paying the cost of replacing all three cords. The photos show that the cord in the ensuite was broken and there was no evidence to indicate that it was broken when the tenancy commenced.
Further, the landlord had never been notified that the blind in the rumpus room was not flowing freely. Had that been the case there was perhaps an opportunity to remedy the issue of the cord so that it was once again free flowing. As it is, I accept that the cord was jammed at the end of the tenancy, that the jamming occurred during the tenancy and that the box and cord required replacement.
The cost of remedying the blinds’ issues was proven by an invoice.
The tenants also dispute responsibility for repairing the shower head. They say that it was always leaking and that they did not use it because of this.
I am satisfied that the tenants ought to pay the cost of repairing the shower head. I say this largely because I accept that the showerhead was approximately only 6 months old at the beginning of the tenancy and the leak occurred because a pipe had come out of the bottom of the shower head. This indicates that more likely than not something must have occurred to the pipe to cause it to come out of the shower head.
The cost of repair was proven by an invoice. Filing fee reimbursement
I am ordering the tenants to reimburse the cost of filing this application to the landlords because the landlords have substantially succeeded with the claim against them. C ter Haar 21 May 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5163371 — net $1,129.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lightbulbs	$30.00	Lightbulbs
Blue pot replacement	$400.00	Blue pot replacement
Blind repairs	$305.00	Blind repairs
Repair of shower head	$16.11	Repair of shower head
HRV pipe repair	$351.00	HRV pipe repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,129.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,129.11

Order

Taryn Lara Wrath and Allan Wrath to pay Jayne Louisa Bennett and Robyn Kay Lawson $1,129.11 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

1 Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. Mrs Bennett stated that she had the authority to represent Mrs Lawson at today’s hearing.

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

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for the tenants’ use. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
At the beginning of today’s hearing the tenants accepted that they ought to pay for the replacement lightbulbs – they had intended to have them replaced and had not done so in the rush of moving out of the premises.
The cost of the replacement lightbulbs was proven.
I am dismissing the landlord’s claim for removing watermarks on the walls. Tenants are required to leave premises reasonably clean, not perfectly clean. I also note that the tenants had had the premises professionally cleaned when they vacated the premises.
One of the more contentious issues at today’s hearing was the landlord’s claim for the cost of replacing a blue garden pot which had been broken when Mrs Wrath’s father moved it, and the cost of replacing the nikau palm which had been in the pot when the tenants commenced the tenancy. These are both chattels.
I am dismissing the claim for the nikau palm. It is common for plants situated in a pot to die and I do not think the tenants ought to be responsible for replacing it.
At today’s hearing the tenants stated that they ought not to have to pay the cost of replacing the blue pot. They stated that they had accepted the pot at the beginning of the tenancy as a favour to the landlords and that it had been broken accidentally by Mrs Wrath’s father.
At today’s hearing Mr Wrath stated that they had used the pot to plant plants after the nikau palm had died. Given that the tenants used the pot they are obliged to have left it at the premises at the end of the tenancy, as provided by s40(1)(e)(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mrs Wrath stated that her research suggests that tenants do not have to pay compensation for damage that has been caused accidentally, rather than carelessly.
However, the Tenancy Tribunal is obliged to follow decisions made by higher courts.
In Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 154, Justice Walker referred to accidental and careless damage as follows “... accidental damage generally encompasses damage arising from the insured’s party’s carelessness or negligence ...”. He has linked accidental and careless damage, which in turn indicates that whether the damage is caused accidentally or carelessly, landlords are entitled to compensation from tenants.
In Tekoa Trust v Stewart [2017] DCR 628, Judge D G Smith addressed the question of whether the tenant’s actions were “an accidental or careless act” or “an intentional and deliberate act”. The use of “or” reflects that the Judge viewed “careless” and “accidental” acts as interchangeable terms when looking at the difference between these acts and “intentional and deliberate” acts.
As stated earlier, I am obliged to follow decisions made by higher courts and so I am satisfied that “careless damage” in the Act encompasses “accidental damage”.
Having made this finding that the tenants are responsible for compensating the landlords for the blue pot, I am reducing the $799.00 claimed for the pot to $400.00. I do so because the pot was at least 15 years old and although purportedly of good quality, there was no real evidence as to how long pots such as these should last in tenanted premises. I have estimated it to have had approximately half its useful life.

Are the tenants 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 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.
The landlord makes a claim for the repair of the HRV pipe, repair of three blinds’ cords, and repair of the shower head. I accept that none of these claims were covered by the landlords’ insurer.
The tenants say they did not damage the HRV pipe which is located in the attic which is used as a storage area.
However, I am satisfied that the tenants ought to pay the cost of the HRV pipe repair.
I say this for reasons that include: (a) I accept the serviceman’s evidence that when he serviced the HRV during the tenancy, the pipe was intact; and (b) The tenants say they stored suitcases/boxes in the attic which they removed at the end of the tenancy; and (c) I note that the HRV serviceman stated that it looked like something had been dragged over the pipe causing it to disconnect; and (d) Logically, given the findings in (a) and (b) above, the pipe was most likely disconnected when items were removed from the storage area by the tenants; and (e) As in my findings regarding the blue garden pot, whether the pipe was dislocated accidentally or carelessly makes no difference as to whether tenants are liable to pay the cost of repair.
The cost of repair was proven by an invoice.
With regard to the cost of replacing three blinds’ cords, the tenants say they are willing to pay the cost of replacing the cord for the blind in the lounge, but do not accept responsibility for the broken cord in the ensuite and the jammed cord in the blind in the rumpus room. They say they did not use the blind in the ensuite and that once the cord for the blind in the rumpus room became difficult to use, they stopped using that blind as well.
The tenants also say that the blinds are flimsy and that any issue was due to fair wear and tear.
I am dismissing the argument that the cords’ issues were due to fair wear and tear. I say this because I accept that the blinds were approximately 6 months old at the beginning of the tenancy. More importantly, there were blinds covering all windows of the house and there were no issues recorded with any of the rest of the cords.
I find that the tenants are responsible for paying the cost of replacing all three cords. The photos show that the cord in the ensuite was broken and there was no evidence to indicate that it was broken when the tenancy commenced.
Further, the landlord had never been notified that the blind in the rumpus room was not flowing freely. Had that been the case there was perhaps an opportunity to remedy the issue of the cord so that it was once again free flowing. As it is, I accept that the cord was jammed at the end of the tenancy, that the jamming occurred during the tenancy and that the box and cord required replacement.
The cost of remedying the blinds’ issues was proven by an invoice.
The tenants also dispute responsibility for repairing the shower head. They say that it was always leaking and that they did not use it because of this.
I am satisfied that the tenants ought to pay the cost of repairing the shower head. I say this largely because I accept that the showerhead was approximately only 6 months old at the beginning of the tenancy and the leak occurred because a pipe had come out of the bottom of the shower head. This indicates that more likely than not something must have occurred to the pipe to cause it to come out of the shower head.
The cost of repair was proven by an invoice. Filing fee reimbursement
I am ordering the tenants to reimburse the cost of filing this application to the landlords because the landlords have substantially succeeded with the claim against them. C ter Haar 21 May 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5163371 — Property damage at 17 Greenview Lane, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5163371 — Property damage at 17 Greenview Lane, Red Beach, Red Beach 0932

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions