What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5207252?

The tribunal order states: Eseta Sheck must pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited $1,948.33

How much money was awarded in case 5207252?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,921.33 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5207252?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5207252?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12183674-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5207252?

The tribunal order states: Eseta Sheck must pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited $1,948.33

How much money was awarded in case 5207252?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,921.33 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5207252?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5207252?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12183674-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

50 Bairds Road, Otara, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5207252 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5207252 — net $1,948.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to bedroom doors, wardrobe, bathroom, toilet doors, window	$1,921.33	Repairs to bedroom doors, wardrobe, bathroom, toilet doors, window
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,948.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,948.33

The Landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not answer the telephone call made by the Tribunal.

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

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.

During the tenancy, damage occurred to the property, including patched-up doors, broken door locks and holes in the walls. The landlord submitted text message exchanges with the Tenant confirming the tenant’s agreement to cover the cost of repairs and to a payment plan. Photographs of the damage taken at the end of the tenancy were also provided. Many of the repairs involved redoing the tenant’s attempted patch-up work. Although the landlord did not have a pre-tenancy inspection report, a mid-tenancy inspection report was submitted, indicating that the wall damage was significantly less at that time than at the end of the tenancy.

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 taken into account 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.

As Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5207252 — net $1,948.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to bedroom doors, wardrobe, bathroom, toilet doors, window	$1,921.33	Repairs to bedroom doors, wardrobe, bathroom, toilet doors, window
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,948.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,948.33

Order

Eseta Sheck must pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited $1,948.33 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not answer the telephone call made by the Tribunal.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
During the tenancy, damage occurred to the property, including patched-up doors, broken door locks and holes in the walls. The landlord submitted text message exchanges with the Tenant confirming the tenant’s agreement to cover the cost of repairs and to a payment plan. Photographs of the damage taken at the end of the tenancy were also provided. Many of the repairs involved redoing the tenant’s attempted patch-up work. Although the landlord did not have a pre-tenancy inspection report, a mid-tenancy inspection report was submitted, indicating that the wall damage was significantly less at that time than at the end of the tenancy.
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 taken into account 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.
As Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5207252 — Property damage at 50 Bairds Road, Otara, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5207252 — Property damage at 50 Bairds Road, Otara, Auckland 2025

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