What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5407330?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (BN-16927171) to Barbara

How much money was awarded in case 5407330?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407330?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13370739-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5407330?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (BN-16927171) to Barbara

How much money was awarded in case 5407330?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407330?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13370739-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 267 Sawyers Arms Road, Bishopdale, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5407330 — Property damage

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (BN-16927171) to Barbara Leona Hintz immediately.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 5 October 2021 and ended on 18 November 2025.
The landlord seeks vacated compensation for alleged damage caused by the tenant.
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 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.

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.
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 claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to walls in kitchen, dining room, hallway and living room. The landlord also claims that the tenant damaged a heater fan blade.
The landlord says that they undertook an exit inspection on 19 November 2025 and discovered damage to walls in the kitchen, dining room, hallway and living room. They say the damage is evidence of the tenant attempting to repair damage to the walls.
The landlord provided two inspections reports with their application dated 29 April 2024 and 4 December 2025. The landlord did not provide an entry inspection report with their application confirming the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy in October 2021. The repairs were arranged by the owner directly.
The landlord only provided a draft quote from Seres Construction dated 21 November 2025 in support of the amount claimed for the wall repairs.
The landlord further claims that the tenant damaged a heater plastic fan blade during the tenancy. Photographic evidence of the damage was provided with the application although no entry inspection report was provided in support of the claim. The landlord has also only provided an estimate from Canterbury Property Maintenance dated 11 February 2026 in support of the amount claimed.
The tenant strongly denies both claims. She says that the landlord ended the tenancy so that they could upgrade the premises. She says that the premises were not in a great condition at the start of the tenancy. She also says that the heater fan blade was broken when she moved in.
The landlord says that the owner has paid for the repairs to be carried out in respect of the damage to walls however has only provided quotes in support of both claims.
The landlord has also failed to provide critical evidence in the form of an entry inspection report. In the absence of an entry inspection report it is impossible to assess the condition of the premises at the time the tenant took possession. Put simply, claims advanced by the landlord are not supported by the evidence filed. At the very least I would have expected an entry inspection report along with evidence that the damage has been paid for in the form of payment invoices and receipts.
Accordingly, the claims have not been established and are therefore dismissed.
The landlord’s application has been unsuccessful and therefore is not entitled to a refund of the application fee.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (BN-16927171) to Barbara Leona Hintz immediately.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 5 October 2021 and ended on 18 November 2025.
The landlord seeks vacated compensation for alleged damage caused by the tenant.
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 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.

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.
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 claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to walls in kitchen, dining room, hallway and living room. The landlord also claims that the tenant damaged a heater fan blade.
The landlord says that they undertook an exit inspection on 19 November 2025 and discovered damage to walls in the kitchen, dining room, hallway and living room. They say the damage is evidence of the tenant attempting to repair damage to the walls.
The landlord provided two inspections reports with their application dated 29 April 2024 and 4 December 2025. The landlord did not provide an entry inspection report with their application confirming the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy in October 2021. The repairs were arranged by the owner directly.
The landlord only provided a draft quote from Seres Construction dated 21 November 2025 in support of the amount claimed for the wall repairs.
The landlord further claims that the tenant damaged a heater plastic fan blade during the tenancy. Photographic evidence of the damage was provided with the application although no entry inspection report was provided in support of the claim. The landlord has also only provided an estimate from Canterbury Property Maintenance dated 11 February 2026 in support of the amount claimed.
The tenant strongly denies both claims. She says that the landlord ended the tenancy so that they could upgrade the premises. She says that the premises were not in a great condition at the start of the tenancy. She also says that the heater fan blade was broken when she moved in.
The landlord says that the owner has paid for the repairs to be carried out in respect of the damage to walls however has only provided quotes in support of both claims.
The landlord has also failed to provide critical evidence in the form of an entry inspection report. In the absence of an entry inspection report it is impossible to assess the condition of the premises at the time the tenant took possession. Put simply, claims advanced by the landlord are not supported by the evidence filed. At the very least I would have expected an entry inspection report along with evidence that the damage has been paid for in the form of payment invoices and receipts.
Accordingly, the claims have not been established and are therefore dismissed.
The landlord’s application has been unsuccessful and therefore is not entitled to a refund of the application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407330 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 267 Sawyers Arms Road, Bishopdale,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407330 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 267 Sawyers Arms Road, Bishopdale,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions