Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5450523 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 105, 10 Alpha Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011
Published 15 April 2026 · Application 5450523
Mixed / unclear
- Property damage
- Unit Titles
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Mixed / unclear
From published order
Location
Wellington
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Steens
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,996.00 immediately apportioned as follows: Tekoah Limited: $579.79; Zane Binglethorne and Maria Coe-Walters: $1,416.21.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. A Chinese interpreter was present for the landlord.
- The landlord sought compensation, release of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenants said they made a further rent payment on 20 January 2026 after the tenancy had ended and were therefore entitled to a rent credit.
Is the tenant entitled to a rent credit?
- The tenancy ran from 14 January 2025 to 14 January 2026, a period of 365 days. That is 52 weeks plus 1 day. The landlord’s revised rent summary is structured on weekly rental periods, and therefore includes a final pro-rated charge of $142.57 for the period 12 January 2026 to 14 January 2026. It then applies the further payment made on 20 January 2026 as a credit of $500.00.
- 52 weeks and 1 day should result in a rent credit of $427.71. I am satisfied the tenants are entitled to a rent credit in that amount.
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. 12. Damage to wall and baseboard
- I am satisfied the living room wall and baseboard were damaged during the tenancy and that this damage went beyond fair wear and tear. Although the premises remained tenantable, that is not the test. This was physical damage to the wall and skirting rather than ordinary deterioration from use. The amount claimed for this item, $280.00 is modest. I allow $140.00, considering that the premises are being used as a residential tenancy, not the Landlord’s personal home, and could be tenanted without the need to rectify this issue immediately. Smoke detector removal / callout
- This tenancy concerned a unit title property. Under section 16B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, body corporate operational rules affecting the tenants were taken to be terms of the tenancy agreement. The Tenancy Tribunal also has jurisdiction, by virtue of the Unit Titles Act 2010, to determine and enforce relevant obligations arising in that setting. I find that the tenants were required to comply with the applicable body corporate rules, especially rules concerning building safety and moving procedures; they chose the apartment and knew the applicable rules.
- I accept the tenant removed the smoke detector following its activation. Even if the alarm was initially triggered by shower steam, and would not stop, removing the detector was not an appropriate response. In an apartment building, interference with a smoke detector gives rise to obvious and serious safety concerns.
- I had thought I may need to question the technician. In the end, I have determined the technician’s absence does not change the result, because even if there was a silencing button the tenant’s own account is that he went on to remove the smoke detector, and it is that act – not any uncertainty about the button – which I find caused the (compensable) breach and callout.
- The Landlord has presented an invoice from the attending technician for the resulting attendance. That is sufficient evidence that the landlord incurred, or became liable to incur, that third-party cost. I therefore allow $839.50 for this item. Building manager invoice
- The landlord also claims $224.25 under an invoice from the building manager for staff time involved in dealing with an alleged breach of body corporate rules – blocking an apartment transit area with their belongings as they moved on 7 January.
- I accept that a breach of operational rules can, in principle, amount to a breach of the tenancy obligations in a unit title setting. However, the Tribunal must still be satisfied that the amount claimed is a genuine and proved loss, rather than an internal administrative response or business-associated cost: see. s 37 RTA.
- On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that this item represents a recoverable compensatory loss. It appears to be a management or administration charge associated with dealing with an incident, rather than an external remediation cost. Landlords are not ordinarily compensated for such matters. Further, it was not a particularised cost the Tenants agreed to at the outset of the tenancy.
- This is a routine matter I would expect the Landlord to deal with at no cost. I therefore decline this item. Filing fee
- The landlord has succeeded in part and is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee of $28.00.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s15, s16B, s37, s40(2), s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s52
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: unit titles
Property management
- TEKOAH LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5450523?
The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,996.00 immediately apportioned as
How much money was awarded in case 5450523?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5450523?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Unit Titles.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5450523?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13452570-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.