What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5327023?

The tribunal order states: Erin Kay Gribble to pay Greg Eeles $72.00 from the bond, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 5327023?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Kitchen Draw: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327023?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327023?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13021458-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5327023?

The tribunal order states: Erin Kay Gribble to pay Greg Eeles $72.00 from the bond, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 5327023?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Kitchen Draw: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327023?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327023?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13021458-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Withers Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5327023 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327023 — net $72.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: kitchen draw	$100.00		Repairs: kitchen draw
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$100.00	$28.00
Net award	$72.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$72.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327023 — net $72.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: kitchen draw	$100.00		Repairs: kitchen draw
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$100.00	$28.00
Net award	$72.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$72.00

Order

Erin Kay Gribble to pay Greg Eeles $72.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $72.00 (5364686-005) to Greg Eeles immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,968.00 (5364686-005) to Erin Kay Gribble immediately.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the two hearings of this matter.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy commenced in December 2017 and ended on 7 June 2025 following the landlord serving the tenant with a 90-day notice to end the tenancy.
Neither party had a copy of the tenancy agreement or any variation agreement. The bond centre holds the bond in the names of two tenants, Mr Hayward (Mr H) and Ms Gribble. Ms Gribble provided written evidence to confirm Mr H did not have any further interest in the bond. At the commencement of the second hearing I phoned Mr H to confirm that was his position and he did. The parties to this matter consider Mr H to no longer be a tenant, I have therefore not amended the parties to include Mr H. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” The Law – tenant’s obligations at the end of the tenancy 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 2 Cleaning and rubbish removal:
There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work). The Law - Tenants responsibility for damage
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 3 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 4
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. 5
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). 6
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). 7 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 8 2 See section 40(1)(e) of the RTA. 3 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 4 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 5 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 6 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 7 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 8 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. 9
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. 10
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. THE LANDLORD’S CLAIMS
The landlord’s insurance excess was $700. Rent was $565 per week. Cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord claims the tenant is liable for the cost of rubbish removal of $310. The amount claimed is for disposing of tyres, planters, the oven and carpet removed from the premises by the landlord. The landlord provided confirmation of payment of the waste bin in support of the claim. No photographs were provided of the planters, tyres or oven.
The tenant says she would have returned to the premises to collect her planters and remove the tyres and leaving them was an oversight. The landlord suggested the planters had a value of approximately $10 but this was disputed by the tenant. Planters would be considered perishable, and tyres would have been rubbish therefore the landlord was entitled to dispose of them. 11
The landlord says the oven was damaged during this tenancy and the carpet was stained beyond repair, therefore the tenant should be liable for their removal.
The tenant disputes liability for the cost of removing the oven and carpet.
The landlord has not made any claim in respect of the replacement carpet and oven. It may be that both these items had fully depreciated. I consider these 9 See section 49B(1) RTA. 10 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 11 See s62 RTA. would likely have been the larger items that were disposed of and given the lack of evidence about the oven and carpet damage I consider the tenant should not be liable for their disposal.
While the landlord may have had to dispose of planters and tyres, I have no information about how many there were or photographs to assess a reasonable value for which the landlord should be compensated for their disposal.
For these reasons, the claim for rubbish removal is dismissed. Damage claims Replace guttering
The landlord claimed compensation to replace guttering on the premises. The amount claimed was $1,762.05. An invoice was provided in support of the claim.
The landlord provided photographs from shortly before the tenancy ended. One of the photographs show a hole in the guttering. Another photograph was provided to show that the guttering had somehow been damaged as a result of the tenant tying a gazebo it.
The tenant denies tying a gazebo to the guttering. No photographs were provided of a gazebo tied to the guttering. The tenant says the hole in the guttering was on a different side of the house to where the gazebo was placed.
The landlord has owned the 1960s home for 29 years and I understand he has not replaced the guttering in that time. The landlord did also not provide pre- tenancy photographs of the guttering. On reviewing the evidence provided I consider that the landlord has not proven that the damage was beyond fair wear and tear.
If I am wrong in that finding, I consider that the useful lifespan of this guttering would be no more than 30 years. The useful lifespan of this guttering has therefore likely expired at the end of the tenancy; therefore, the landlord has not proven a loss.
The landlords claim for compensation in respect of the guttering is dismissed. Replace two doors
The landlord said that two doors were damaged in the premises during the tenancy. The landlord claims $549.10 to replace the two doors. Only a quote was provided in support of the claim. The landlord said the doors would have been the original doors from the 1960’s.
The landlord provided a photograph of one of the doors which was in the kitchen area. The door handle has been cracked with what appears to have been by excessive force and is therefore more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant explained that the door in the kitchen was damaged when it became jammed, and she needed to promptly open it as her young child was on the other side of the door. I therefore consider that the damage was neither careless nor intentional but the result of the door not functioning properly. The tenant has therefore disproved liability for the damage to the kitchen door.
The landlord has provided a photograph of a second damaged door. The door handle has become loose, but I am not satisfied on the evidence that this damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
I also note that the Tribunal considers the estimated lifespan of doors in a rental property is around 25 years. Therefore, the doors had exceeded their useful lifespan and taking into account betterment and depreciation the landlord has not proven a loss for which compensation should be ordered.
For these reasons the claim in respect of the two doors is dismissed Replace pantry doors
The landlord claimed compensation to reinstall the pantry doors. The landlord claims $287.50. An invoice was provided in support of the claim. The landlord says the pantry doors were poorly removed by the tenant, causing damage. The landlord said the kitchen cabinets were approximately 24 years old as he installed them.
The tenant disputes poorly removing the pantry doors. She says they were oversized and heavy and a hinge broke as a result. The tenant says once the first hinge gave way, she carefully removed the pantry doors and left them in storage for the landlord to reinstall.
Given the age of the cabinets, it is likely that the hinges would start to break during this tenancy as the result of normal use.
I consider the landlord has not proven that the damage to the pantry doors is more than fair wear and tear and this claim is dismissed. Repair kitchen draws
The landlord claimed compensation to repair the kitchen drawers. The amount claimed is $345. An invoice was provided in support of the claim. As noted above, the kitchen was 24 years old. In addition, the landlord has not provided pre-tenancy photographs of the kitchen drawers.
However, the tenant accepted that there was some damage to the kitchen cutlery draw, likely caused during this tenancy. In taking into account that some of the damage appears, in my view, to be fair wear and tear, and some of the damage to have been careless, and in taking into account betterment and depreciation, I order the tenant to pay part of the repair to the kitchen draw and the amount ordered is $100. Wall repairs
The landlord claimed compensation to paint the walls in the premises. The landlord claimed $1035. An invoice from Henderson painting was provided in support of the claim
The invoice notes that it was for repairing various doors and walls in the house by filling and repairing holes and dents and rips in the wallpaper and painting.
The landlord has not provided any documentary evidence of the holes and dents that required repair. The landlord did provide oral evidence that the cost to refurbish the home was more because of the holes caused by the tenant. The landlord has provided a photograph of wallpaper peeling away from the wall; however, this appears to be fair wear and tear.
I consider the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence for me to make a finding that the wall damage was more than fair wear and tear. In addition, current depreciation guidelines estimate the life of painted wall in a rental property is between 5 – 14 years and 5-12 years for a wallpapered wall. The wall painting and wallpaper therefore had likely exceeded its useful lifespan as the landlord said it had not been replaced for 20 years.
For these reasons, the claim in respect of the wall damage is dismissed. Bond
The bond is to be distributed in accordance with the amounts ordered. Filing Fee
The tenant has been substantially successful with her claim; therefore, I have reimbursed the tenant the filing fee. 12 12 See section 102 (4)(a) of the RTA.
The landlord has had minor success with his claim. I decline to reimburse the landlord the filing fee. 13 Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant provisions state: (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.... ...(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be made subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
On my enquiry, the tenant did not seek name suppression.
The landlord did seek name suppression; however, the landlord has not been substantially successful in his claim and the landlord’s interest do not outweigh the public interest in publication. Name suppression for the landlord is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327023 — Property damage at 33 Withers Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327023 — Property damage at 33 Withers Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions