Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5343694 — Rent arrears at 11B Merlot Drive, Greenmeadows, Napier 4112
Published 25 January 2026 · Application 5343694
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Napier
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
S Young
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,064.31
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $2,064.31
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears | $1,346.43 | Rent arrears | |
| Repairs: Fence | $648.94 | tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $648.94. | |
| Repairs: Switch | $40.94 | tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $40.94 | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $2,064.31 | ||
| Bond | $2,900.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $2,064.31 |
Claims and awards for application 5343694 — net $2,064.31 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears
- Amount
- $1,346.43
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears
Repairs: Fence
- Amount
- $648.94
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $648.94.
Repairs: Switch
- Amount
- $40.94
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $40.94
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $2,064.31
Bond
Landlord $2,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $2,064.31
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Sarah Melhuish to pay Bryceson Limited $2,064.31 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,900.00 (5698542-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Bryceson Limited: $2,064.31 Sarah Melhuish: $835.69
Reasons
- Both parties attended the remote hearing on 20 January 2026.
- The tenancy commenced on 15 May 2023 and ended on 31 August 2025.
- The premises were a relatively modern single level home. The law
- The relevant law applying to this matter is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the cross-application applicant (in this case the landlord), establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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 more likely than not. This obligation carried by the tenant 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 (DC) TT 233/02, in practical terms this means that; “Like 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 tenant has applied for release of her bond.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for rent?
- The parties consented to an order for rent arrears being made in favour of the landlord for $1,346.43.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord says that the dishwasher cutlery tray was missing from the dishwasher at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided a quote for a replacement of $476.73.
- The landlord said that it was only at the end of the tenancy that they noticed the tray missing. The ingoing inspection report refers to the dishwasher as being “clean and in good repair”.
- The tenant said that she was not aware that there was ever a tray as it is located just under the top of the inside of the dishwasher. The only photo provided to the Tribunal has been taken at such an angle that it is not clear whether there is a tray or not.
- The burden of proving the claim is on the landlord. I do not consider that sufficient proof has been provided to persuade me that a tray had been present at the commencement of the tenancy. The claim is dismissed.
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. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $800.00 on each and every claim.
- 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.
- The landlord says that the two panels on the fence were damaged during the tenancy. The landlord has provided a quote for repair of the two panels of $648.94. Photos were provided of the damaged panels.
- The tenant says that the damage may have occurred after the tenancy ended. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $648.94.
- The landlord withdrew the claim for damage to the Chorus box.
- The landlord says that a switch was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord provided a photo and an invoice for repairs of $40.94.
- The tenant said that the damage had been caused by leaving a jug boiling close to the switch. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $40.94
- As Bryceson Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2), s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
- BRYCESON LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5343694?
The tribunal order states: Sarah Melhuish to pay Bryceson Limited $2,064.31 from the bond, calculated as
How much money was awarded in case 5343694?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,346.43 awarded to landlord; Fence: $648.94 awarded to landlord; Switch: $40.94 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343694?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343694?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13021760-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.