What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5391141?

The tribunal order states: Sopida (Joy) Wathanabharadorn must pay Elizabeth Jane Sloane $518.00 from

How much money was awarded in case 5391141?

Cleaning: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391141?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391141?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13740696-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5391141?

The tribunal order states: Sopida (Joy) Wathanabharadorn must pay Elizabeth Jane Sloane $518.00 from

How much money was awarded in case 5391141?

Cleaning: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391141?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391141?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13740696-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Northwood Villas, Northwood, Christchurch 8051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5391141 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5391141 — net $518.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water damage (insurance excess	$400.00	Water damage (insurance excess
Garden work	$50.00	Garden work
Cleaning	$40.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$518.00
Bond	$1,340.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$518.00

Order

Sopida (Joy) Wathanabharadorn must pay Elizabeth Jane Sloane $518.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,340.00 (6484014004) immediately apportioned as follows: Elizabeth Jane Sloane: $518.00 Sopida (Joy) Wathanabharadorn: $822.00

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for payment of the bond. Background
This tenancy ended on 24 October 2025 following a termination notice from the tenant.
After the tenant had vacated, the landlord discovered water damage to skirtings and cabinetry in the laundry area. The parties discussed the cause of the damage, and the landlord concluded that a leak from the tenant’s washing machine or possibly an overflowing tub had caused the damage.
There was a washing machine in the premises, but the tenant bought her own machine and had it installed during the tenancy.
The landlord and her husband repaired the damage and claim $1,016 for their time and materials.
The landlord also claims $300 for garden work and $50 for cleaning. These claims are also based on the landlord’s time.
These applications first came before the Tribunal remotely on 6 March 2026. The hearing weas adjourned for an in-person hearing. The order made then required the landlord to provide additional documents at least 5 working days before the next hearing including better photographs of the wall behind the washing machine, invoices for the repair work and the landlord’s insurance policy. It also stated that the landlord should bring hard copies of the documents to the hearing.
The case was scheduled for hearing on 1 May. The landlord requested an adjournment on 24 April due to a hospital appointment and the hearing was adjourned to today 12 June.
I made an order at that time for the undisputed amount of the bond, $1,000, to be paid to the tenant leaving $1,340 at the Bond Centre.
At the commencement of the hearing no additional documents had been added to the Tribunal file. The landlord said that she had emailed them to the Tribunal on 9 June. The Tribunal did not receive them because the landlord sent them to the wrong (and non-existent) email address. An email to that address would immediately have bounced back as undeliverable. As well, the landlord did not bring any hard copies of the documents to the hearing.
The Tribunal gave the landlord the opportunity to resend the documents which she was able to do, but for some reason the documents came in the form of a Power Point which was unopenable.
The Tribunal then gave the landlord the opportunity to provide the documents on her mobile telephone and laptop computer for the Tribunal to view. She was able to do so but the evidence was limited.
The documents did not include a copy of the relevant insurance policy. The landlord said that she did not make an insurance claim because the tenant did not provide her with the information that she needed to complete the claim form such as the date that the damage occurred or who had installed the washing machine. Relevant Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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). Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
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. Water Damage
The landlord produced enough evidence to satisfy me that the water damage occurred during the tenancy and that it was the result of the tenant’s carelessness or that of someone at the premises with her permission.
The landlord said that the tenant initially said that the suppliers of the washing machine also installed it. Later, she said that her flatmate installed it. In any case, it is likely that it was not installed correctly and that resulted in water leaking over time damaging the skirtings and cabinetry in the vicinity of the washing machine. It seems that the damage was not noticeable until the washing machine was removed and there was a close inspection.
There is no suggestion that the tenant caused the damage intentionally and so it was careless damage.
The landlord has not provided her insurance policy, and the Tribunal has not been able to consider it and the extent of cover it provides. The landlord said that the insurer in NZI and I take judicial notice of the fact that a standard NZI insurance policy covers hidden gradual damage from a leaking pipe or installation.
The landlord said that she did not have enough information from the tenant to make a claim. I do not accept that. The tenant said that she was not aware of a water leak during the tenancy. Therefore, the only information that could be given to the insurer was that the water leak occurred after the tenant installed the washing machine. I see no reason why the insurer would not have accepted that. In any case, because the landlord did not make a claim, we will never know. The tenant should not be prejudiced by that.
It follows that the landlord’s claim for the water damage is limited to the amount of the excess on the landlord’s policy being $400. I have therefore awarded that amount. Garden Work
The landlord said that the garden needed a considerable amount of work at the end of the tenancy to put it into a tidy condition. There was very little evidence to support that. There were photographs showing two small areas of weeds. They do not support a claim for 15 hours of garden work.
I accept that some weeding was required, and I have awarded $50 for the landlord’s time. Cleaning
There were no photographs showing the condition of the premises to support a claim for cleaning apart from in the laundry area. I accept that there was mould from the water leak that needed to be cleaned off, and so I have awarded $50 for the landlord’s time. Filing Fee
The landlord has had some success and so I have awarded the filing fee. Bond
I have split the remaining bond to give effect to the outcome. Suppression
There is no good reason to grant anyone name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5391141 — net $518.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water damage (insurance excess	$400.00	Water damage (insurance excess
Garden work	$50.00	Garden work
Cleaning	$40.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$518.00
Bond	$1,340.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$518.00

Order

Sopida (Joy) Wathanabharadorn must pay Elizabeth Jane Sloane $518.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,340.00 (6484014004) immediately apportioned as follows: Elizabeth Jane Sloane: $518.00 Sopida (Joy) Wathanabharadorn: $822.00

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for payment of the bond. Background
This tenancy ended on 24 October 2025 following a termination notice from the tenant.
After the tenant had vacated, the landlord discovered water damage to skirtings and cabinetry in the laundry area. The parties discussed the cause of the damage, and the landlord concluded that a leak from the tenant’s washing machine or possibly an overflowing tub had caused the damage.
There was a washing machine in the premises, but the tenant bought her own machine and had it installed during the tenancy.
The landlord and her husband repaired the damage and claim $1,016 for their time and materials.
The landlord also claims $300 for garden work and $50 for cleaning. These claims are also based on the landlord’s time.
These applications first came before the Tribunal remotely on 6 March 2026. The hearing weas adjourned for an in-person hearing. The order made then required the landlord to provide additional documents at least 5 working days before the next hearing including better photographs of the wall behind the washing machine, invoices for the repair work and the landlord’s insurance policy. It also stated that the landlord should bring hard copies of the documents to the hearing.
The case was scheduled for hearing on 1 May. The landlord requested an adjournment on 24 April due to a hospital appointment and the hearing was adjourned to today 12 June.
I made an order at that time for the undisputed amount of the bond, $1,000, to be paid to the tenant leaving $1,340 at the Bond Centre.
At the commencement of the hearing no additional documents had been added to the Tribunal file. The landlord said that she had emailed them to the Tribunal on 9 June. The Tribunal did not receive them because the landlord sent them to the wrong (and non-existent) email address. An email to that address would immediately have bounced back as undeliverable. As well, the landlord did not bring any hard copies of the documents to the hearing.
The Tribunal gave the landlord the opportunity to resend the documents which she was able to do, but for some reason the documents came in the form of a Power Point which was unopenable.
The Tribunal then gave the landlord the opportunity to provide the documents on her mobile telephone and laptop computer for the Tribunal to view. She was able to do so but the evidence was limited.
The documents did not include a copy of the relevant insurance policy. The landlord said that she did not make an insurance claim because the tenant did not provide her with the information that she needed to complete the claim form such as the date that the damage occurred or who had installed the washing machine. Relevant Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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). Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
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. Water Damage
The landlord produced enough evidence to satisfy me that the water damage occurred during the tenancy and that it was the result of the tenant’s carelessness or that of someone at the premises with her permission.
The landlord said that the tenant initially said that the suppliers of the washing machine also installed it. Later, she said that her flatmate installed it. In any case, it is likely that it was not installed correctly and that resulted in water leaking over time damaging the skirtings and cabinetry in the vicinity of the washing machine. It seems that the damage was not noticeable until the washing machine was removed and there was a close inspection.
There is no suggestion that the tenant caused the damage intentionally and so it was careless damage.
The landlord has not provided her insurance policy, and the Tribunal has not been able to consider it and the extent of cover it provides. The landlord said that the insurer in NZI and I take judicial notice of the fact that a standard NZI insurance policy covers hidden gradual damage from a leaking pipe or installation.
The landlord said that she did not have enough information from the tenant to make a claim. I do not accept that. The tenant said that she was not aware of a water leak during the tenancy. Therefore, the only information that could be given to the insurer was that the water leak occurred after the tenant installed the washing machine. I see no reason why the insurer would not have accepted that. In any case, because the landlord did not make a claim, we will never know. The tenant should not be prejudiced by that.
It follows that the landlord’s claim for the water damage is limited to the amount of the excess on the landlord’s policy being $400. I have therefore awarded that amount. Garden Work
The landlord said that the garden needed a considerable amount of work at the end of the tenancy to put it into a tidy condition. There was very little evidence to support that. There were photographs showing two small areas of weeds. They do not support a claim for 15 hours of garden work.
I accept that some weeding was required, and I have awarded $50 for the landlord’s time. Cleaning
There were no photographs showing the condition of the premises to support a claim for cleaning apart from in the laundry area. I accept that there was mould from the water leak that needed to be cleaned off, and so I have awarded $50 for the landlord’s time. Filing Fee
The landlord has had some success and so I have awarded the filing fee. Bond
I have split the remaining bond to give effect to the outcome. Suppression
There is no good reason to grant anyone name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391141 — Property damage at 28 Northwood Villas, Northwood, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391141 — Property damage at 28 Northwood Villas, Northwood, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions