What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5259359?

The tribunal order states: Sharma Gordon Smith must pay Visionwest Community Trust $1,063.29

How much money was awarded in case 5259359?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $811.28 awarded to landlord; Replace Chattels: $225.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259359?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259359?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12318866-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5259359?

The tribunal order states: Sharma Gordon Smith must pay Visionwest Community Trust $1,063.29

How much money was awarded in case 5259359?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $811.28 awarded to landlord; Replace Chattels: $225.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259359?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259359?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12318866-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19B Roker Street, Somerfield, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5259359 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259359 — net $1,063.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$811.28	Repairs
Replace chattels	$225.01	Replace chattels
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,063.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,063.29

Order

Sharma Gordon Smith must pay Visionwest Community Trust $1,063.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 26 August 2025. The tenant did not.
Visionwest Community Trust provides emergency and transitional housing to tenants. On 13 March 2024, they entered into a tenancy with Sharma Gordon Smith for transitional housing at 19B Roker St, Somerfield, Christchurch 8024. The tenancy ended on 10 February 2025. Visionwest Community Trust claim the tenant is responsible for damaging the electrical switchboard and not returning a number of chattels provided at the beginning of the tenancy.
The issues I must determine are: a. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this case? b. Is the tenant responsible for damaging the electrical switchboard? c. Did the tenant return all chattels provided to them at the beginning of the tenancy?
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this case?

The law

Section 5(1)(y) RTA states the Act does not apply to premises used to provide emergency or transitional accommodation where the accommodation is funded wholly or partly by: a. A person under a welfare programme approved and established under section 101 of the Social Security Act 2018; or b. Any payment made by a government department for the provision of emergency or transitional housing.
Section 8(1) RTA states that parties to an excluded tenancy can agree in writing that all or any of the provisions of the RTA shall apply in respect of the tenancy. Analysis
The landlord uses the tenancy address to provide emergency or transitional accommodation to tenants. The accommodation is funded wholly or partly by the Ministry of Social Development. Therefore, the starting point is that section 5(1)(y) RTA applies to exclude the tenancy from the RTA.
Clause 1a of the tenancy agreement states that the RTA shall apply to the tenancy for the purpose of “rent and invoice arrears and any damage to the property.”
Despite the fact that this is an excluded tenancy, I find the parties have agreed in writing that the provisions of the RTA relating to rent, invoice arrears and damage shall apply to this tenancy. The landlord’s claims relate to these matters and therefore, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this case.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the electrical switchboard?

The law

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. 1
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 2
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). 3
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). 4 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant’s conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 5
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 applied to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 6
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. 7 Analysis
The landlord gave evidence the tenant damaged the electrical switchboard by tampering with it to bypass the power meter and receive free power. The 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 2 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(a). 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(b). 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3A)(a). 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(1). 7 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. landlord claims this was discovered when the cleaner entered the premises and could not vacuum, because the power points did not work.
The landlord submitted a copy of a Maintenance Work Order sent to the electrician, which states: Can we please check the properties meter and get verification that the meter and power is ok as there has been no power for 6 months – please assist
The landlord submitted work order invoices from the electrician totalling $811.28 to assess the electrical switchboard and fix it.
The Maintenance Work Order notes and invoices from the electrician support the landlord’s evidence about what happened to the electrical switchboard. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the tenant damaged the electrical switchboard by tampering with it to receive free power. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord has submitted proof that they have incurred a cost of $811.28 to hire an electrician to fix the switchboard. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Did the tenant return all chattels provided to them at the beginning of the tenancy?
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return all chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant. 8
The landlord submitted a copy of a chattels list recording all of the chattels provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims a number of these chattels were not returned at the end including, a laundry basket, kettle, cutlery, plates, cups, toaster and numerous other miscellaneous household items. The landlord submitted a receipt for the purchase of replacement chattels totalling $225.01.
The invoice for the purchase of replacement chattels is dated 15 May 2025. It post-dates the end of the tenancy and all of the items listed on the invoice are included on the chattels list taken at the beginning of the tenancy. This convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the items listed on the invoice were provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy and not returned at the end.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the missing chattels is granted for $225.01. 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(v). Filing fee
Because Visionwest Community Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259359 — net $1,063.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$811.28	Repairs
Replace chattels	$225.01	Replace chattels
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,063.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,063.29

Order

Sharma Gordon Smith must pay Visionwest Community Trust $1,063.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 26 August 2025. The tenant did not.
Visionwest Community Trust provides emergency and transitional housing to tenants. On 13 March 2024, they entered into a tenancy with Sharma Gordon Smith for transitional housing at 19B Roker St, Somerfield, Christchurch 8024. The tenancy ended on 10 February 2025. Visionwest Community Trust claim the tenant is responsible for damaging the electrical switchboard and not returning a number of chattels provided at the beginning of the tenancy.
The issues I must determine are: a. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this case? b. Is the tenant responsible for damaging the electrical switchboard? c. Did the tenant return all chattels provided to them at the beginning of the tenancy?
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this case?

The law

Section 5(1)(y) RTA states the Act does not apply to premises used to provide emergency or transitional accommodation where the accommodation is funded wholly or partly by: a. A person under a welfare programme approved and established under section 101 of the Social Security Act 2018; or b. Any payment made by a government department for the provision of emergency or transitional housing.
Section 8(1) RTA states that parties to an excluded tenancy can agree in writing that all or any of the provisions of the RTA shall apply in respect of the tenancy. Analysis
The landlord uses the tenancy address to provide emergency or transitional accommodation to tenants. The accommodation is funded wholly or partly by the Ministry of Social Development. Therefore, the starting point is that section 5(1)(y) RTA applies to exclude the tenancy from the RTA.
Clause 1a of the tenancy agreement states that the RTA shall apply to the tenancy for the purpose of “rent and invoice arrears and any damage to the property.”
Despite the fact that this is an excluded tenancy, I find the parties have agreed in writing that the provisions of the RTA relating to rent, invoice arrears and damage shall apply to this tenancy. The landlord’s claims relate to these matters and therefore, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this case.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the electrical switchboard?

The law

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. 1
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 2
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). 3
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). 4 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant’s conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 5
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 applied to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 6
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. 7 Analysis
The landlord gave evidence the tenant damaged the electrical switchboard by tampering with it to bypass the power meter and receive free power. The 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 2 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(a). 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(b). 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3A)(a). 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(1). 7 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. landlord claims this was discovered when the cleaner entered the premises and could not vacuum, because the power points did not work.
The landlord submitted a copy of a Maintenance Work Order sent to the electrician, which states: Can we please check the properties meter and get verification that the meter and power is ok as there has been no power for 6 months – please assist
The landlord submitted work order invoices from the electrician totalling $811.28 to assess the electrical switchboard and fix it.
The Maintenance Work Order notes and invoices from the electrician support the landlord’s evidence about what happened to the electrical switchboard. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the tenant damaged the electrical switchboard by tampering with it to receive free power. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord has submitted proof that they have incurred a cost of $811.28 to hire an electrician to fix the switchboard. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Did the tenant return all chattels provided to them at the beginning of the tenancy?
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return all chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant. 8
The landlord submitted a copy of a chattels list recording all of the chattels provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims a number of these chattels were not returned at the end including, a laundry basket, kettle, cutlery, plates, cups, toaster and numerous other miscellaneous household items. The landlord submitted a receipt for the purchase of replacement chattels totalling $225.01.
The invoice for the purchase of replacement chattels is dated 15 May 2025. It post-dates the end of the tenancy and all of the items listed on the invoice are included on the chattels list taken at the beginning of the tenancy. This convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the items listed on the invoice were provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy and not returned at the end.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the missing chattels is granted for $225.01. 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(v). Filing fee
Because Visionwest Community Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259359 — Property damage at 19B Roker Street, Somerfield, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259359 — Property damage at 19B Roker Street, Somerfield, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this case?

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the electrical switchboard?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this case?

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the electrical switchboard?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions