What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5183812?

The tribunal order states: David John Morrow and Justine Mear are to pay Brian Nickerson and Helena

How much money was awarded in case 5183812?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5183812?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5183812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11755184-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5183812?

The tribunal order states: David John Morrow and Justine Mear are to pay Brian Nickerson and Helena

How much money was awarded in case 5183812?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5183812?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5183812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11755184-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

781 Gladstone Road, Te Hapara, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5183812 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5183812 — net $400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for kitchen sink overflow	$400.00	Insurance excess for kitchen sink overflow
Net award	$400.00
Bond	$1,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$400.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5183812 — net $400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for kitchen sink overflow	$400.00	Insurance excess for kitchen sink overflow
Net award	$400.00
Bond	$1,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$400.00

Order

David John Morrow and Justine Mear are to pay Brian Nickerson and Helena Nickerson $400.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 (5710968-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Brian Nickerson and Helena Nickerson: $400.00 David John Morrow and Justine Mear: $1,480.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr and Mrs Nickerson, the landlords, and Mr Morrow and Mrs Morrow (aka Justine Mears), all attended the hearing in-person.
The landlord has applied for compensation, remedy of breach, failure to perform tenant responsibilities, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. During the hearing, the landlord confirmed they were claiming compensation and the filing fee. The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages was withdrawn during the hearing.
The tenant has claimed breach of quiet enjoyment, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord confirmed at the start of the hearing that they were not claiming rent arrears and the tenant confirmed at the start of the hearing that they were not claiming compensation or for any exemplary damages relating to the claim for breach of quiet enjoyment, despite mentions of these issues in the respective application documents.
The landlord indicated at the end of the hearing that they were claiming for 4 weeks’ rent, as the tenants did not provide them with sufficient notice to terminate the tenancy. There was much discussion in the hearing about the tenant having the incorrect email address for the landlord. However, as the landlord did not claim for rent arrears or provide any rent summary to prove any such claim in any event, there is no claim to be determined here. To be clear, had there been a rent arrears claim, it would have been dismissed due to insufficient evidence being provided by the landlord about this.
A party making a claim must prove their claim using the civil standard of a balance of probabilities. If the parties have differing versions as to the events involved in a claim, the party making the claim must provide additional supporting evidence to prove their claim. Landlord’s claims

Did the tenant 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 their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said the tenant left the premises mostly reasonably clean and tidy but that the stove was filthy. The landlord did not provide an Ingoing Inspection report with photographs showing the condition of the stove at the start of the tenancy, nor did they provide an Outgoing Inspection report with photographs showing the condition of the property generally at the end of the tenancy. However, the landlord provided 5 photographs that they said were taken on 6 November 2025, the day after the tenancy ended on 5 November 2025, which the landlord said showed the dirty hotplates from under the stove elements, dirty cloths and dirty newspaper the landlord used to clean the stove, the floor under the stove once the stove was pulled back, and some plastic bread tags that the landlord said were found behind the stove. There were no photographs from the landlord showing the top of the stove or the inside of the oven at the end of the tenancy though.
The landlord said the oven tray had to be replaced, provided a photograph of the oven tray, and said it cost $24.99 to buy a new oven tray, which they claimed from the tenant. The landlord did not provide an invoice or receipt for the purchase of the new oven tray.
The tenant said they scrubbed the premises thoroughly before they left and cleaned the stove well. The tenant provided photographs of the oven and stove top that they said were taken on 3 November 2025, as they were clearing out their belongings and cleaning the property before the tenancy ended on 5 November 2025. The photographs provided by the tenant show a very clean oven and stove top. The tenant said the bread tags must have been behind the stove when they moved in, as they never left bread tags there, and that the use of plastic bread tags had been discontinued for a while, which proved their claim it was not them leaving the plastic tags there, but more likely an earlier tenant. The tenant said the oven tray in the oven was very old and they did their best to clean it regularly, but it would have needed to be replaced in any event.
The landlord said they did not know where the tenant got their photographs of a clean stove and oven. The landlord claimed it took them 9.5 hours to just clean the stove and oven and used an hourly rate of $30.00, that they said they were charged by a professional cleaner in the past, to claim a total of $285.00 for having to clean the stove.
Both parties have very different versions of whether the stove was clean at the end of the tenancy. The tenant’s photographs show a very clean oven and stove top. The landlord’s photographs show the hotplates from under the stove elements, dirty cloths and newspaper and a dirty floor under the stove, and the bread tags. However, the landlord did not provide photographs of the stove top or inside of the oven at the end of the tenancy, nor did the landlord show photographs confirming the condition of the stove, oven and surrounding area of the stove (floor underneath the stove) at the start of the tenancy. Further, the landlord did not provide any proof of the purchase of a new oven tray or that the tenant caused any damage to the oven tray during the tenancy. Given this, I find that there is insufficient supporting evidence provided by the landlord for their claims for the requirement for a cleaning cost or for the replacement of the oven tray, and so dismiss these claims.

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. Kitchen sink overflow
The landlord said the tenant caused flood damage during the tenancy. They claimed that, on 28 September 2024, the tenant left water running in their kitchen sink, which overflowed, left water damage in the premises (which later dried they confirmed) and caused damage to the apartment below the premises, which the landlord also owns. The landlord said they made an insurance claim for this damage and incurred an insurance excess of $400.00 for this. The landlord provided an invoice from the insurance company for the excess of $400.00 but said the repair cost was significantly more than the insurance excess amount, which was confirmed in insurance documents provided. The landlord claimed this was careless damage on the tenant’s part.
The tenants agreed they caused the flood damage carelessly and did not dispute the water from the kitchen sink overflowed causing damage, which they said was an accident.
As the parties agree this was careless damage on the tenants’ part, I find the tenant likely caused this damage carelessly. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind the section 49B RTA cap. Given the provisions of section 49B RTA apply, compensation would be limited to the insurance excess, which is $400.00. Therefore, I award the landlord $400.00 as the insurance excess for the tenant’s careless damage with the kitchen sink overflow.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved. Shower leak
The landlord also claimed the tenant was liable for damage caused by a shower leak in the premises. The parties confirmed that a plumber attended the property for this issue, which was discovered around 2 weeks after the kitchen sink overflow incident, according to the parties. The landlord did not provide any report from the plumber about what was discovered in terms of the cause of the shower leaking.
The landlord said the shower stalk was broken. No photographs or other additional supporting evidence was provided about this or the shower leak.
The tenant said they were not aware of the leak in the shower wall, that it was discovered to be inside the wall which they could not see, and that they had been told by the plumber at the time of his visit that the issue had likely been going on for some time. The tenant denied the shower stalk was broken.
The landlord said they were unsure of the cause of the shower leak, which apparently went into the apartment below the premises, but thought it might have been caused by the tenant’s carelessness. The landlord made a further insurance claim for this damage, which again incurred a further excess of $400.00.
I find the landlord has not provided sufficient supporting evidence about the causation of the shower leak, or the damage resulting from the shower leak, and so have not shown that the tenants likely caused this damage during the tenancy. As such, I dismiss this claim. Tenants’ claims Quiet Enjoyment
The tenant claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants confirmed at the start of the hearing that they did not claim exemplary damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment.
Harassment means “to trouble, worry or distress” or “to wear out, tire, or exhaust” and “indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person”. MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant said one of the landlords, Mr Nickerson, was constantly at the premises doing maintenance jobs, even on many weekends, that he positioned himself on ladders or scaffolding to look into their premises, that he stopped one of the tenants from getting to an appointment one time and then berated her by text later for stopping him when she told him she had to get to an appointment, and that he listened in on a phone call by one of the tenants. The tenant said the landlord had ongoing lists of jobs to be done at the premises, that it was relentless, and they had no peace from this behaviour. The tenant denied getting notice of when this would occur. The tenant said they emailed the landlord about this and then asked for a meeting with the landlord eventually, to address this issue. The tenant confirmed the meeting had not gone well but the landlord had acknowledged they were doing ongoing maintenance at the property. The minutes of this meeting, which were written by Mrs Nickerson and included her view of the meeting, and a list of maintenance jobs, and an email from the tenant to the landlord dated 16 May 2024 about the maintenance issue, were provided.
I note that the tenant’s email of 16 May 2024 to the landlord about this ongoing maintenance being problematic, a copy of which was provided, was not sent to the correct email for the landlord, along with other emails from the tenant, according to the landlord. Thus, it is unclear as to whether the landlord received this or other emails from the tenant and was notified that this was an issue at the time. However, the landlord was aware this was an issue by the time of the meeting between the parties.
The landlord said when the property was empty, they decided to do an upgrade but then the tenants were looking for a place to live and asked them if they could move in right away. They said they made it clear to the tenants when they moved in that there would be ongoing work and maintenance on the property. The landlord said they gave the tenant notice of when they were going to be doing maintenance at the property, which the tenant denied receiving. The landlord denied they were at the property doing maintenance excessively, saying most maintenance was done on the premises below these tenants, especially work done on the weekends. Mr Nickerson thought he would have been at the property generally at the most around 11 days over a month. He confirmed he used mobile scaffolding for some de-rusting and painting of spouting, near the tenants, which needed doing. Mr Nickerson agreed that he had been fitting a new rangehood at the tenant’s premises when he heard one of the tenants on the phone and that he commented to her afterwards how well he thought she dealt with something on the phone. He apologised to the tenant for this if she found it offensive. He also said he had done some mowing at the property, after he had waited a while for the lawns to be done and they had not been, so he went there and mowed the lawns.
Whilst I accept the landlord was likely at the property carrying out maintenance on a fairly regular basis, and admitted hearing a phone call the tenant had, I find there is insufficient additional supporting evidence to show this amounted to a pattern of harassment towards the tenants. As such, I dismiss this claim. Refund of the bond
The tenant claimed refund of the full bond of $1,880.00. Whilst the landlord did not make a formal claim for refund of the bond in their application, they said during the hearing that they would like any claim found in their favour to be deducted from the bond.
As I have found the tenant is liable to pay the landlord’s insurance excess in relation to the kitchen sink overflow, the tenant is to pay the landlord this insurance excess of $400.00, from the bond.
Therefore, the Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 (5710968-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Brian Nickerson and Helena Nickerson: $400.00 David John Morrow and Justine Mear: $1,480.00 Filing fee
As both parties have had partial success with their claims, I do not refund the filing fee to either party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5183812 — Property damage at 781 Gladstone Road, Te Hapara, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5183812 — Property damage at 781 Gladstone Road, Te Hapara, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

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

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions