What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5379684?

The tribunal order states: Haydee de Klerk must pay Tauranga Residential Rentals Limited T/As Quinovic

How much money was awarded in case 5379684?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379684?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379684?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13054538-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5379684?

The tribunal order states: Haydee de Klerk must pay Tauranga Residential Rentals Limited T/As Quinovic

How much money was awarded in case 5379684?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379684?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379684?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13054538-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6C Kayelene Place, Omokoroa, Omokoroa 3114 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5379684 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5379684 — net $728.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess	$700.00	Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$728.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$728.00

Order

Haydee de Klerk must pay Tauranga Residential Rentals Limited T/As Quinovic Property Management $728.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

On 7 November 2025 the landlord filed an application seeking compensation for an insurance excess and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms McCaskie, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), 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 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 (DC) TT233/02, 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. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 23 January 2025 with the fixed term ending on 23 January 2026, thereafter the tenancy became periodic.
On 13 September 2025 there was a severe weather warning issued for the Tauranga area predicting severe to gale force winds.
During the predicted weather event, the tenant’s trampoline was picked up by the wind and collided with the house damaging the guttering.
The landlord made a successful insurance claim and seeks reimbursement of the insurance excess.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

With any claim from a landlord for compensation for damage to the premises, 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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L of the Act.
It is for the landlord to establish that any damage is beyond fair wear and tear, which is an exception to tenant liability. See section 49A(2) of the Act. 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. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
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. See section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
The landlord seeks compensation of $700.00 for the insurance excess that was paid out to repair damage caused by the tenant’s trampoline when it collided with the house damaging the guttering. An insurance certificate in the amount of $750.00 was provided. The landlord limited their claim to $700.00 as they failed to properly notify the tenant of the increase in the insurance excess.
The landlord’s position is, the tenant failed to take all reasonable steps to properly secure the trampoline prior to the predicted weather event, which was widely publicised in the media. The landlord said the tenant’s failure to remove the netting and sides of the trampoline allowed them to act like a large sail in the strong winds. The wind was able to push against the net and sides and caused the trampoline to lift and move, colliding with the house and damaging the guttering.
The tenant said that she only learnt of the predicted weather event on the day the storm hit after being notified by a friend. She said that this warning prompted her to returned to Tauranga to secure the trampoline. The tenant said that she used gym weights, straps and tent pegs to secure the trampoline to the ground. The tenant said she did not remove the net and sides of the trampoline because it was dark, her young child was alone in the house, she did not feel safe doing so, and that even if she had known how to remove the net and sides, she would have needed help. The tenant said she also thought it would “be fine” and was surprised by the strength of the wind. Analysis and decision
Both parties agree that the property was damaged by the tenant’s trampoline after it became airborne during a weather event.
The landlord’s position is the tenant failed to take all reasonable steps to properly secure the trampoline for the predicted strong winds. Had the tenant removed the net and sides of the trampoline the risk of it being lifted and moved would have been mitigated.
The tenant’s position is that she took all reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of damage by using gym weights, straps and tent pegs to secure the trampoline to the ground.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant took all reasonable steps to properly secure the trampoline for the predicted weather event. The tenant was aware there was a risk the trampoline could move in high winds. By failing to remove the net and sides, which acted like a sail, the trampoline was lifted and collided with the house causing damage. The Tribunal finds that the damage was caused carelessly, and the amount claimed is ordered. Other matters
Because Tauranga Residential Rentals Limited T/As Quinovic Property Management has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord has been wholly successful but did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5379684 — net $728.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess	$700.00	Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$728.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$728.00

Order

Haydee de Klerk must pay Tauranga Residential Rentals Limited T/As Quinovic Property Management $728.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

On 7 November 2025 the landlord filed an application seeking compensation for an insurance excess and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms McCaskie, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), 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 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 (DC) TT233/02, 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. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 23 January 2025 with the fixed term ending on 23 January 2026, thereafter the tenancy became periodic.
On 13 September 2025 there was a severe weather warning issued for the Tauranga area predicting severe to gale force winds.
During the predicted weather event, the tenant’s trampoline was picked up by the wind and collided with the house damaging the guttering.
The landlord made a successful insurance claim and seeks reimbursement of the insurance excess.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

With any claim from a landlord for compensation for damage to the premises, 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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L of the Act.
It is for the landlord to establish that any damage is beyond fair wear and tear, which is an exception to tenant liability. See section 49A(2) of the Act. 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. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
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. See section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
The landlord seeks compensation of $700.00 for the insurance excess that was paid out to repair damage caused by the tenant’s trampoline when it collided with the house damaging the guttering. An insurance certificate in the amount of $750.00 was provided. The landlord limited their claim to $700.00 as they failed to properly notify the tenant of the increase in the insurance excess.
The landlord’s position is, the tenant failed to take all reasonable steps to properly secure the trampoline prior to the predicted weather event, which was widely publicised in the media. The landlord said the tenant’s failure to remove the netting and sides of the trampoline allowed them to act like a large sail in the strong winds. The wind was able to push against the net and sides and caused the trampoline to lift and move, colliding with the house and damaging the guttering.
The tenant said that she only learnt of the predicted weather event on the day the storm hit after being notified by a friend. She said that this warning prompted her to returned to Tauranga to secure the trampoline. The tenant said that she used gym weights, straps and tent pegs to secure the trampoline to the ground. The tenant said she did not remove the net and sides of the trampoline because it was dark, her young child was alone in the house, she did not feel safe doing so, and that even if she had known how to remove the net and sides, she would have needed help. The tenant said she also thought it would “be fine” and was surprised by the strength of the wind. Analysis and decision
Both parties agree that the property was damaged by the tenant’s trampoline after it became airborne during a weather event.
The landlord’s position is the tenant failed to take all reasonable steps to properly secure the trampoline for the predicted strong winds. Had the tenant removed the net and sides of the trampoline the risk of it being lifted and moved would have been mitigated.
The tenant’s position is that she took all reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of damage by using gym weights, straps and tent pegs to secure the trampoline to the ground.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant took all reasonable steps to properly secure the trampoline for the predicted weather event. The tenant was aware there was a risk the trampoline could move in high winds. By failing to remove the net and sides, which acted like a sail, the trampoline was lifted and collided with the house causing damage. The Tribunal finds that the damage was caused carelessly, and the amount claimed is ordered. Other matters
Because Tauranga Residential Rentals Limited T/As Quinovic Property Management has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord has been wholly successful but did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379684 — Property damage at 6C Kayelene Place, Omokoroa, Omokoroa 3114

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379684 — Property damage at 6C Kayelene Place, Omokoroa, Omokoroa 3114

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the property?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions