What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5259081?

The tribunal order states: Gaylene Robyn Harris to pay SGP Carsaig Family Trust $300.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5259081?

Wallpaper: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259081?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259081?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12373257-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5259081?

The tribunal order states: Gaylene Robyn Harris to pay SGP Carsaig Family Trust $300.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5259081?

Wallpaper: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259081?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259081?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12373257-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17B Tomin Road, Glenview, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5259081 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259081 — net $300.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: wallpaper	$300.00	Repairs: wallpaper
Net award	$300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$300.00

Order

Gaylene Robyn Harris to pay SGP Carsaig Family Trust $300.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $300.00 (3128891-014) to SGP Carsaig Family Trust immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,300.00 (3128891-014) to Gaylene Robyn Harris immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Gouk appeared for the landlord. The tenant also appeared. At the commencement of the hearing, the tenant made a request to be represented by their friend. The request was granted.
The tenancy commenced on 21 April 2021 and was periodic. The landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy on the basis that they intended to sell the property, which they subsequently did. On 01 April 2025, the tenant gave 21 days’ notice, and the tenancy ended on 21 May 2025. The tenant filed their claim on 09 May 2025, seeking a full refund of the bond and general damages of $1,000.00 for emotional distress, the result of having to defend the landlord’s claims made against the bond. On 17 June 2025, the landlord filed a counter claim seeking compensation of $1,100.00 for damage to the wallpaper and the floor. Law
The onus of proving these claims rest with the party making the claim. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. Each party must establish more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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) of the Act.
The landlord has insurance for careless damage with an excess of $550.00 per claim. In this case the total amount claimed is less than the combined excesses that would have applied had the landlord made a claim against their insurance.
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, or something i.e. animals, they are responsible for. See section 49B (1) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
Awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The primary goal of compensation is to return the landlord to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. If compensation claimed would result in the landlord being better off than there were originally, the Tribunal may reduce the award to reflect betterment. In calculating betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Landlord’s evidence
The landlord has produced photographs of damage to wallpaper in the lounge, hallway, and a bedroom. The landlord has produced a pre tenancy inspection report, which includes photographs. The property was constructed in the 1960s. The pre tenancy report shows pre-existing fair wear and tear. The landlord stated that the report was sent to the tenant who was invited to note any additional damage. The landlord states the tenant accepted the report and did not add to it.
The landlord states the end of tenancy photographs show damage over and above that present at the commencement of the tenancy, which they claim is more than fair wear and tear, having likely been caused by parrots kept by the tenant.
Although Ms Gouk was not present at the relevant time, she stated that during the end of tenancy inspection the tenant apologised for damage and advised it had been caused by birds.
The landlord also stated that the wooden floor in the lounge was damaged by a deep scratch. However, apart from an invoice for $3,000.00 to provide and install carpet and vinyl, there is no supporting evidence of the scratch. The landlord stated that the lounge floor was carpeted over, concealing the damage.
The invoice for repairing the damaged wallpaper is $1,495.00. Tenants evidence
The tenant initially denied admitting liability other than removing peeling wallpaper above the lounge curtain. The tenant states that the landlord conducting the inspection became confrontational and that they had left.
The tenant stated that toward the end of the tenancy the landlord brought family members to view the property. The tenant states they did not supervise the visitors and could not rule out that they may have contributed to the damage.
The tenant states that the final inspection occurred two days after the end of the tenancy and believed that contractors had entered the property and caused damage.
The tenant questioned whether repairs were completed before the property was sold on 09 May 2025, and further that the landlord profited from the sale and had been adequately compensated.
The tenant stated that the parrots were allowed out of their cages to fly freely around the house.
The tenant then accepted liability for three areas of fresh damage consistent with bird pecking. However, the tenant argued that damage above a section of skirting board in the hallway near the bathroom and above a skirting board in the lounge was pre-existing and shown in the pre tenancy report. The tenant also stated that sections of the wallpaper above the curtain in the lounge had come loose and they had removed them to avoid further damage. Analysis and decision
The issue is whether the damage claimed occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If so, the tenant must show that the damage was not intentional or the result of carelessness.
I cannot accept that the landlord’s family nor that contractors may have been responsible for the damage.
I accept the tenant’s argument that the section of wallpaper above the skirting board in the lounge is fair wear and tear and existed at the commencement of the tenancy. Some of the wallpaper damage near the bathroom appears to be pre- existing, while other areas are fresh. The peeling paper above the curtain in the lounge is fair wear and tear, though removing loose wallpaper may amount to intentional damage. The tenant has accepted liability for three other areas of discrete damage. I am satisfied that these, along with part of the damage near the bathroom occurred during the tenancy and are consistent with bird pecking. Tenants are responsible for damage caused by animals they keep. In this case I find that the damage was more than fair wear and tear and is likely the result of carelessness.
There are no photographs or other evidence to allow an objective assessment of damage to the wooden floor, and that part of the claim is dismissed.
I am satisfied that the repairs to the wallpaper were completed before the property was sold. The question is reasonable compensation. The landlord could not confirm the wallpapers age. The pre tenancy inspection report shows some wear and tear consistent with the property’s age. The invoice is not itemised and covers all repairs. Taking into account betterment I award the landlord $300.00 to repair the damage. Tenant’s claim general damages
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing [ 2020] NZDC 17667, the Court held that under section 77(1)(n) of the Act the Tribunal may award damages for losses arising from a breach that are reasonably foreseeable, including general damages for pain and suffering.
However, in this case the claim does not arise from a breach of the agreement or provisions of the Act, and instead relates to anxiety the tenant claims they have suffered defending the landlord’s claims.
The landlord is entitled to bring such claims. There is also insufficient evidence relating to the conduct of the landlord during the tenancy justifying such an award. Costs
The Tribunal has the discretion to award a partly successful party reimbursement of their filing fee. Both parties seek reimbursement of their respective filing fees. Arguably both have been partly successful triggering the Tribunal’s discretion to order reimbursement of the filing fee. However, as reimbursing the filing fee to one would effectively cancel reimbursement to the other, and vice versa, I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fees. Name suppression.
The landlord does not seek name suppression. The tenant does.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in these proceedings, and name suppression is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259081 — net $300.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: wallpaper	$300.00	Repairs: wallpaper
Net award	$300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$300.00

Order

Gaylene Robyn Harris to pay SGP Carsaig Family Trust $300.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $300.00 (3128891-014) to SGP Carsaig Family Trust immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,300.00 (3128891-014) to Gaylene Robyn Harris immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Gouk appeared for the landlord. The tenant also appeared. At the commencement of the hearing, the tenant made a request to be represented by their friend. The request was granted.
The tenancy commenced on 21 April 2021 and was periodic. The landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy on the basis that they intended to sell the property, which they subsequently did. On 01 April 2025, the tenant gave 21 days’ notice, and the tenancy ended on 21 May 2025. The tenant filed their claim on 09 May 2025, seeking a full refund of the bond and general damages of $1,000.00 for emotional distress, the result of having to defend the landlord’s claims made against the bond. On 17 June 2025, the landlord filed a counter claim seeking compensation of $1,100.00 for damage to the wallpaper and the floor. Law
The onus of proving these claims rest with the party making the claim. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. Each party must establish more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
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) of the Act.
The landlord has insurance for careless damage with an excess of $550.00 per claim. In this case the total amount claimed is less than the combined excesses that would have applied had the landlord made a claim against their insurance.
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, or something i.e. animals, they are responsible for. See section 49B (1) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
Awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The primary goal of compensation is to return the landlord to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. If compensation claimed would result in the landlord being better off than there were originally, the Tribunal may reduce the award to reflect betterment. In calculating betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Landlord’s evidence
The landlord has produced photographs of damage to wallpaper in the lounge, hallway, and a bedroom. The landlord has produced a pre tenancy inspection report, which includes photographs. The property was constructed in the 1960s. The pre tenancy report shows pre-existing fair wear and tear. The landlord stated that the report was sent to the tenant who was invited to note any additional damage. The landlord states the tenant accepted the report and did not add to it.
The landlord states the end of tenancy photographs show damage over and above that present at the commencement of the tenancy, which they claim is more than fair wear and tear, having likely been caused by parrots kept by the tenant.
Although Ms Gouk was not present at the relevant time, she stated that during the end of tenancy inspection the tenant apologised for damage and advised it had been caused by birds.
The landlord also stated that the wooden floor in the lounge was damaged by a deep scratch. However, apart from an invoice for $3,000.00 to provide and install carpet and vinyl, there is no supporting evidence of the scratch. The landlord stated that the lounge floor was carpeted over, concealing the damage.
The invoice for repairing the damaged wallpaper is $1,495.00. Tenants evidence
The tenant initially denied admitting liability other than removing peeling wallpaper above the lounge curtain. The tenant states that the landlord conducting the inspection became confrontational and that they had left.
The tenant stated that toward the end of the tenancy the landlord brought family members to view the property. The tenant states they did not supervise the visitors and could not rule out that they may have contributed to the damage.
The tenant states that the final inspection occurred two days after the end of the tenancy and believed that contractors had entered the property and caused damage.
The tenant questioned whether repairs were completed before the property was sold on 09 May 2025, and further that the landlord profited from the sale and had been adequately compensated.
The tenant stated that the parrots were allowed out of their cages to fly freely around the house.
The tenant then accepted liability for three areas of fresh damage consistent with bird pecking. However, the tenant argued that damage above a section of skirting board in the hallway near the bathroom and above a skirting board in the lounge was pre-existing and shown in the pre tenancy report. The tenant also stated that sections of the wallpaper above the curtain in the lounge had come loose and they had removed them to avoid further damage. Analysis and decision
The issue is whether the damage claimed occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If so, the tenant must show that the damage was not intentional or the result of carelessness.
I cannot accept that the landlord’s family nor that contractors may have been responsible for the damage.
I accept the tenant’s argument that the section of wallpaper above the skirting board in the lounge is fair wear and tear and existed at the commencement of the tenancy. Some of the wallpaper damage near the bathroom appears to be pre- existing, while other areas are fresh. The peeling paper above the curtain in the lounge is fair wear and tear, though removing loose wallpaper may amount to intentional damage. The tenant has accepted liability for three other areas of discrete damage. I am satisfied that these, along with part of the damage near the bathroom occurred during the tenancy and are consistent with bird pecking. Tenants are responsible for damage caused by animals they keep. In this case I find that the damage was more than fair wear and tear and is likely the result of carelessness.
There are no photographs or other evidence to allow an objective assessment of damage to the wooden floor, and that part of the claim is dismissed.
I am satisfied that the repairs to the wallpaper were completed before the property was sold. The question is reasonable compensation. The landlord could not confirm the wallpapers age. The pre tenancy inspection report shows some wear and tear consistent with the property’s age. The invoice is not itemised and covers all repairs. Taking into account betterment I award the landlord $300.00 to repair the damage. Tenant’s claim general damages
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing [ 2020] NZDC 17667, the Court held that under section 77(1)(n) of the Act the Tribunal may award damages for losses arising from a breach that are reasonably foreseeable, including general damages for pain and suffering.
However, in this case the claim does not arise from a breach of the agreement or provisions of the Act, and instead relates to anxiety the tenant claims they have suffered defending the landlord’s claims.
The landlord is entitled to bring such claims. There is also insufficient evidence relating to the conduct of the landlord during the tenancy justifying such an award. Costs
The Tribunal has the discretion to award a partly successful party reimbursement of their filing fee. Both parties seek reimbursement of their respective filing fees. Arguably both have been partly successful triggering the Tribunal’s discretion to order reimbursement of the filing fee. However, as reimbursing the filing fee to one would effectively cancel reimbursement to the other, and vice versa, I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fees. Name suppression.
The landlord does not seek name suppression. The tenant does.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in these proceedings, and name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259081 — Property damage at 17B Tomin Road, Glenview, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259081 — Property damage at 17B Tomin Road, Glenview, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions