What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5202772?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (5198050-002) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5202772?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5202772?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5202772?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12148837-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5202772?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (5198050-002) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5202772?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5202772?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5202772?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12148837-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 8G, 15 City Road, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5202772 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5202772. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs	$1,000.00		Repairs

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5202772. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs	$1,000.00		Repairs

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (5198050-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Nevit Golzarpour: $1,000.00 Iman Cao: $840.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a 12-month tenancy that ended on 5 April 2025. There are two claims following the end of the tenancy. The Landlord wants to recover $1,840 in compensation for: a. damage to walls and a coffee table; b. the cost of attempting to relet the premises when the Tenant asked to vacate early; and c. mileage for two visits to the premises.
The Tenant claims that: a. the amounts the Landlord seeks to recover are excessive, including because she acted in good faith at the end of the tenancy and when attempting to resolve this dispute; and b. the Landlord has committed unlawful acts by: i.failing to disclose the insurance excess applicable to the premises; and ii.advertising the premises for rent while the tenancy was ongoing The Landlord’s claim Damage to the walls
The Landlord says that the walls had been repainted about three months before the start of the tenancy. The Landlord has provided photographs of damage to walls at the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant accepts that the damage to the walls occurred during her tenancy. She says that she attached posters to the walls using a paper adhesive tape, and the damage occurred when she removed the tape. The photographs show that the Tenant then attempted to repair the damaged areas. The repair attempts were poor.
Under section 49A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), there is a general principle that a tenant has no liability or obligation to meet the cost of any damage to the premises. However, under section 49B of the RTA, a tenant can be liable where: a. the Landlord proves that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear; and b. the Tenant does not prove that the damage was not caused by any careless or intentional act or omission.
Fair wear and tear is deterioration due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. 1 Some of the damage to the walls is fair wear and tear. For example, the paint chips on the corner of the wall in the living area and two small areas of damage – one which appears to be a mark where something has scraped the wall and the other where a small chip of paint has come away, is the type of 1 Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403 damage that a landlord can reasonably expect to occur. The Tenant is not liable for that damage.
However, the remainder of the damage to the walls was more than fair wear and tear. That wall damage was caused by the Tenant attaching items to the wall with an inappropriate tape. When she removed the tape, small areas of paint and the top layer of wallboard were also removed. To compound matters, the Tenant then attempted to repair the damage using a mesh tape. The result is unsightly and, if anything, necessitates a more expensive repair then would have been required if she had performed no repairs at all.
I find that the Tenant’s actions were therefore careless. She did not intentionally damage the walls, in that she did not set out to cause the damage that resulted. But I am satisfied that her actions in firstly using an inappropriate adhesive tape and secondly in performing a substandard repair, were careless.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the Tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the cost of the repair, the Landlord’s insurance excess (if the property is insured against the damage) or four weeks' rent. 2
The Landlord has insurance, with an excess of $1,000. The Landlord says that this damage is not covered by insurance, but there was no evidence presented to show that he has attempted to make any insurance claim. Further, this type of damage is typically covered by insurance and the evidence presented, including the insurance policy documents, does not clearly demonstrate that the damage is not covered by the Landlord’s insurance.
I therefore find that it is likely that the damage was covered by insurance, meaning the maximum the Landlord can recover is $1,000 (including the mileage cost associated with traveling to and from the premises to have the damage assessed). That is the amount that the Landlord is entitled to recover for the wall damage.
Even if I am wrong about the insurance cover, I consider that $1,000 is a reasonable estimate of the cost of the repairs required to remedy the carelessly caused damage. The repairs have not yet been performed and the Landlord has provided an estimate from Ringo Kapua of Mantis Construction & Maintenance, which estimates the repair cost at $1,456.75. That estimate includes repairs to damage that I have found were fair wear and tear. The Tenant is not liable for that cost. I therefore think that $1,000 is a fair reflection of the cost the Landlord will incur to remedy the carelessly caused damage. Damage to the coffee table
The Landlord has also provided a photograph of damage to a coffee table. The photograph shows a ring, consistent with a hot cup being placed on the table, 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 49B(3)(a). with damage to the table on one edge of the ring. The Landlord says the table was near new and has provided an invoice to show that he purchased the table for $58 in November 2023. The Tenant agrees that the table was damaged during her tenancy.
I am not satisfied that the damage to the table is more than fair wear and tear. The table is made of inexpensive materials (as evidenced by its price) and I am not satisfied that the Tenant has acted without care by placing a hot cup on the table. It is, after all, a coffee table.
I therefore find that the Tenant is not liable for the coffee table damage. The cost of reletting the premises
In January 2025, the Tenant asked to break the fixed term tenancy early. After some negotiation, the Landlord agreed, and paid $63.25 to myRent to advertise the premises online. The Landlord then showed prospective tenants through the property and says that one tenant lodged an application to rent the premises.
The Tenant then changed her mind and decided to stay until the end of the fixed term. The Landlord therefore seeks to recover the cost of advertising the premises and his mileage costs in travelling to the premises to show to prospective tenants.
I accept that the Landlord has incurred this cost in response to the Tenant advice that she would leave the premises, but I am not satisfied that the Tenant is liable for this cost. That is because the Tenant’s conduct does not breach the tenancy agreement or any of the obligations in the RTA, so I cannot order that it is liable for that cost. See section 77(2)(n) of the RTA.
The Landlords’ claim to recover this cost is therefore dismissed. The Tenant’s claim Reduction of the Landlord’s damages claim
I have made findings above regarding the Landlord’s claims for damages. The amounts awarded are less than the Landlord claimed. The Tenant has submitted that the amounts awarded should also reflect that she has acted in good faith, including by returning the keys as required and attempting to resolve this dispute.
Those actions have no bearing on the amounts I can award to the Landlord. Awards of damages and compensation cannot be reduced just because the other party has behaved well in other situations. I therefore make no deductions to the amount awarded to the Landlord due to the Tenant’s conduct. Failure to disclose the insurance excess
The premises are insured. The Landlord says that his agent provided a copy of the insurance policy to the Tenant. He says that it is his agent’s usual practice to provide that document to tenants. The Tenant denies seeing the insurance policy.
The Tenant bears the onus of proving that the Landlord failed to disclose the insurance policy. I am not satisfied that she has done this. In that regard, I accept the evidence of the Landlord that it is likely that the insurance policy was provided to the Tenant at the start of the tenancy.
However, the Landlord did not provide the required information about the insurance excess. Under section 13A(2)(b) of the RTA, the Landlord was required to include in the tenancy agreement a statement setting out the amount of the insurance excess as relevant to the Tenant’s liability for destruction or damage of the premises. The Landlord did not provide that information to the Tenant until after the tenancy ended.
The Landlord has therefore committed an unlawful act. But I do not think there should be any punishment for that. I am satisfied that the Landlord acted in good faith, in that he relied on his agent having satisfied the legal requirements when entering into the tenancy. I also consider that the breach is technical, and the Tenant has suffered no loss as a consequence. The Landlord provided the information when she asked for it, and the Tenant has then successfully used that information in her defence to this claim.
I therefore make no orders against the Landlord for his failure to provide the insurance excess details to the Tenant. The early advertising of the premises
The Tenant alleges that the Landlord advertised the premises for rent on 7 January 2025, advising prospective tenants that the premises were available from 1 February 2025. The Tenant provided a copy of that advertisement. She says this was unlawful as her tenancy did not end until 5 April 2025.
The Landlord denies advertising the property for rent at that time. He says that he did not attempt to advertise the premises until March 2025, and only then because the Tenant told him that she wanted to leave early.
Even if the Landlord did advertise the premises for rent from 1 February 2025, which he denies, I am not satisfied that the Tenant would be entitled to any remedy. That is because she did not know about the advertisement at that time and the Landlord took no steps to remove her from the premises or otherwise attempt to end her tenancy early. I am therefore satisfied that the Landlord has not breached any of his obligations under the RTA or the tenancy agreement, so this claim is also dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
Each of the parties has had a degree of success in this claim, so I make no orders for the recovery of the filing fees paid.
The Landlord does not seek name suppression. The Tenant does. I can only grant name suppression if the Tenant has been wholly or substantially successful or if it is in the public interest to do so. The Tenant has had some success, but not to an extent that could be considered substantial. I also see no overriding public interest in name suppression. I therefore decline to grant name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5202772 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 8G, 15 City Road, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5202772 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 8G, 15 City Road, Auckland Central, Auckland

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