What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5467989?

The tribunal order states: Harmeet Singh must pay Brent Parkinson, Suzan Parkinson $778.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5467989?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5467989?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5467989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13722693-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5467989?

The tribunal order states: Harmeet Singh must pay Brent Parkinson, Suzan Parkinson $778.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5467989?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5467989?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5467989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13722693-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Nottingham Road, Omokoroa 3114 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5467989 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5467989 — net $778.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation: Insurance excess for kitchen bench	$750.00	Insurance excess for kitchen bench
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$778.00
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$778.00

Harmeet Singh must pay Brent Parkinson, Suzan Parkinson $778.00 from the bond immediately, calculated as follows in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (BN-17455719) immediately apportioned as follows: Brent Parkinson and Suzan Parkinson: $778.00 Harmeet singh: $2,022.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 9 June 2026.

The tenant seeks a refund of their bond. The landlord has filed a cross- application seeking compensation of $750.00 for the insurance excess to repair the kitchen benchtop.

Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Is the tenant responsible for damage sustained to the kitchen benchtop during the tenancy? The law

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. 1

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. 2 Analysis

The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. No staining to the kitchen benchtop is apparent. The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. Discolouration to the kitchen benchtop is apparent. The discolouration is towards the top of the benchtop, immediately above the sink. The shape of the discolouration is a large square.

A comparison of the photographs of the kitchen benchtop taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the kitchen benchtop was stained during the tenancy. I now turn to consider whether the staining exceeds fair wear and tear.

The tenant gave evidence that they did not use the dishwasher and only ever dried their dishes by hand. The tenant claims they dried their dishes using a wooden drying rack, which was situated at the top of the kitchen benchtop 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 2 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. above the location of the sink. The tenant claims they kept a tray underneath the drying rack to collect excess water. The staining on the kitchen benchtop appears to be where the tenant kept the drying rack and tray.

The landlord has had the damage assessed by a qualified stone technician. They submitted a copy of an email sent by Stone Lab Ltd on 3 February 2026. It states: Good morning Suzan On our site assessment I performed a couple of tests to see if the stain could be removed and the results of the tests show that there was a large measure of hard water build up on the surface of the benchtop, which seems to be contributing to the staining making it difficult to remove...

This evidence convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the staining is a result of the permanent placement of the drying rack on top of the benchtop by the tenant. It appears that excess water from the drying rack has deposited onto the kitchen benchtop over time and caused staining. The drying rack does not appear to have been regularly moved or dried underneath.

Whilst it is reasonable to wash dishes by hand and use a drying rack, where the drying rack is placed directly on top of a kitchen benchtop, the area underneath needs to be regularly cleaned and dried and the drying rack moved. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced this did not occur in the present case. For this reason, and by a relatively slim margin, I find the damage exceeds fair wear and tear.

The tenant has not proven that the damage was not intentionally or carelessly caused, on the balance of probabilities.

For all of these reasons, I find the tenant is responsible for the cost to repair the kitchen benchtop. The landlord’s insurer has accepted the landlord’s claim and the landlord has only paid an excess of $750.00. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $750.00. Filing fee & name suppression

Because the landlord has been wholly successful with their claim, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim. For this reason, I do not order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee, nor do I grant the tenant’s request for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5467989 — net $778.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation: Insurance excess for kitchen bench	$750.00	Insurance excess for kitchen bench
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$778.00
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$778.00

Order

Harmeet Singh must pay Brent Parkinson, Suzan Parkinson $778.00 from the bond immediately, calculated as follows in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (BN-17455719) immediately apportioned as follows: Brent Parkinson and Suzan Parkinson: $778.00 Harmeet singh: $2,022.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 9 June 2026.
The tenant seeks a refund of their bond. The landlord has filed a cross- application seeking compensation of $750.00 for the insurance excess to repair the kitchen benchtop.
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Is the tenant responsible for damage sustained to the kitchen benchtop during the tenancy? The law
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. 1
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. 2 Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. No staining to the kitchen benchtop is apparent. The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. Discolouration to the kitchen benchtop is apparent. The discolouration is towards the top of the benchtop, immediately above the sink. The shape of the discolouration is a large square.
A comparison of the photographs of the kitchen benchtop taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the kitchen benchtop was stained during the tenancy. I now turn to consider whether the staining exceeds fair wear and tear.
The tenant gave evidence that they did not use the dishwasher and only ever dried their dishes by hand. The tenant claims they dried their dishes using a wooden drying rack, which was situated at the top of the kitchen benchtop 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 2 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. above the location of the sink. The tenant claims they kept a tray underneath the drying rack to collect excess water. The staining on the kitchen benchtop appears to be where the tenant kept the drying rack and tray.
The landlord has had the damage assessed by a qualified stone technician. They submitted a copy of an email sent by Stone Lab Ltd on 3 February 2026. It states: Good morning Suzan On our site assessment I performed a couple of tests to see if the stain could be removed and the results of the tests show that there was a large measure of hard water build up on the surface of the benchtop, which seems to be contributing to the staining making it difficult to remove...
This evidence convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the staining is a result of the permanent placement of the drying rack on top of the benchtop by the tenant. It appears that excess water from the drying rack has deposited onto the kitchen benchtop over time and caused staining. The drying rack does not appear to have been regularly moved or dried underneath.
Whilst it is reasonable to wash dishes by hand and use a drying rack, where the drying rack is placed directly on top of a kitchen benchtop, the area underneath needs to be regularly cleaned and dried and the drying rack moved. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced this did not occur in the present case. For this reason, and by a relatively slim margin, I find the damage exceeds fair wear and tear.
The tenant has not proven that the damage was not intentionally or carelessly caused, on the balance of probabilities.
For all of these reasons, I find the tenant is responsible for the cost to repair the kitchen benchtop. The landlord’s insurer has accepted the landlord’s claim and the landlord has only paid an excess of $750.00. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $750.00. Filing fee & name suppression
Because the landlord has been wholly successful with their claim, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim. For this reason, I do not order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee, nor do I grant the tenant’s request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5467989 — Property damage at 5 Nottingham Road, Omokoroa 3114

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5467989 — Property damage at 5 Nottingham Road, Omokoroa 3114

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions