What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5472847?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the earlier order dated 2 June 2026 and is only in respect of

How much money was awarded in case 5472847?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5472847?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5472847?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13687043-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5472847?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the earlier order dated 2 June 2026 and is only in respect of

How much money was awarded in case 5472847?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5472847?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5472847?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13687043-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Barnes Street, Glenwood, Timaru 7910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5472847 — Property damage

Order

This order replaces the earlier order dated 2 June 2026 and is only in respect of case 5472847.
The tenant party name is amended to be Simran Singh Sambhi aka Ronok Sambhi aka Thakur Sambani.
In all other respects the order remains the same as recorded below.
The application for termination is withdrawn by the landlord.
The applications for compensation for damage and suppression are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference in respect of case 5472847 which was scheduled before me.
The application names the tenant as Ronok Sambhi. The tenancy agreement names the tenant as Thakur Sambani. The tenant advised that his correct legal name is Simran Singh Sambhi and provided a driver’s license with this name.
The party name is amended to be Simran Singh Sambhi aka Ronok Sambhi aka Thakur Sambani.
In all other respects the reasons remain the same as recorded below.
The tenant rented a room in a three bedroom premises which had a maximum of five occupants during the tenancy.
In November and December some of the tenants moved out and new tenants moved into the other rooms soon afterwards.
The landlord filed a claim for termination due to breaches by the tenant and compensation for damage to a deck.
At the hearing the parties advised that the tenancy ended in May 2026 so the order for termination was no longer sought.
The burden of proof is on the party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal (in this case the landlord) to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach together with the cost to remedy. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof

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 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.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: (a)Black marks on the deck. (b)The landlord provided photographs of the marks on the deck taken in October 2025. A photograph taken in February 2026 of the tenant’s shoes, a cloth with black marks on it and a small black mark on the deck. The landlord also provided copies of messages which included a message to the tenant on 31 October 2025 accusing him of causing the marks and the tenant responding that he is overseas. (c)The tenant denied causing the damage and provided evidence that he was overseas from early October 2025 and not in the country at the time the landlord discovered and accused him of causing the damage. (d)The landlord responded that the other tenants told her the damage was caused by the tenant prior to him leaving the country. (e)The landlord further claimed that the cloth with black marks on discovered near the tenant’s shoes in February 2026 was evidence that he caused the damage. The tenant stated that the cloth did not belong to him. (f)The landlord did not quantify the amount sought to remedy the damage and stated that the other tenants cleaned the marks and then she cleaned anything remaining.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has failed to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons: (a)The landlord discovered the damage when the tenant was overseas and as she does not live at the property stated that she relied on what the other tenants told her. As the tenant disputes this evidence, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused before the tenant left the country. (b)I am not satisfied that the presence of a cloth with marks on it outside the house is sufficient to prove that it is owned by this tenant or that it proves the tenant caused marks on the deck. (c)When there are multiple tenancies in respect of the same premises it is very difficult to prove who caused damage in a common area especially when the tenants are blaming each other. (d)The landlord has also not provided any evidence of the cost to remedy the damage. (e)For the above reasons I find that the claim is not proved on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord is seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order. If a party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has applied for suppression but as they have not been successful with the claim the application for suppression is declined.

Order

This order replaces the earlier order dated 2 June 2026 and is only in respect of case 5472847.
The tenant party name is amended to be Simran Singh Sambhi aka Ronok Sambhi aka Thakur Sambani.
In all other respects the order remains the same as recorded below.
The application for termination is withdrawn by the landlord.
The applications for compensation for damage and suppression are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference in respect of case 5472847 which was scheduled before me.
The application names the tenant as Ronok Sambhi. The tenancy agreement names the tenant as Thakur Sambani. The tenant advised that his correct legal name is Simran Singh Sambhi and provided a driver’s license with this name.
The party name is amended to be Simran Singh Sambhi aka Ronok Sambhi aka Thakur Sambani.
In all other respects the reasons remain the same as recorded below.
The tenant rented a room in a three bedroom premises which had a maximum of five occupants during the tenancy.
In November and December some of the tenants moved out and new tenants moved into the other rooms soon afterwards.
The landlord filed a claim for termination due to breaches by the tenant and compensation for damage to a deck.
At the hearing the parties advised that the tenancy ended in May 2026 so the order for termination was no longer sought.
The burden of proof is on the party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal (in this case the landlord) to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach together with the cost to remedy. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof

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 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.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: (a)Black marks on the deck. (b)The landlord provided photographs of the marks on the deck taken in October 2025. A photograph taken in February 2026 of the tenant’s shoes, a cloth with black marks on it and a small black mark on the deck. The landlord also provided copies of messages which included a message to the tenant on 31 October 2025 accusing him of causing the marks and the tenant responding that he is overseas. (c)The tenant denied causing the damage and provided evidence that he was overseas from early October 2025 and not in the country at the time the landlord discovered and accused him of causing the damage. (d)The landlord responded that the other tenants told her the damage was caused by the tenant prior to him leaving the country. (e)The landlord further claimed that the cloth with black marks on discovered near the tenant’s shoes in February 2026 was evidence that he caused the damage. The tenant stated that the cloth did not belong to him. (f)The landlord did not quantify the amount sought to remedy the damage and stated that the other tenants cleaned the marks and then she cleaned anything remaining.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has failed to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons: (a)The landlord discovered the damage when the tenant was overseas and as she does not live at the property stated that she relied on what the other tenants told her. As the tenant disputes this evidence, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused before the tenant left the country. (b)I am not satisfied that the presence of a cloth with marks on it outside the house is sufficient to prove that it is owned by this tenant or that it proves the tenant caused marks on the deck. (c)When there are multiple tenancies in respect of the same premises it is very difficult to prove who caused damage in a common area especially when the tenants are blaming each other. (d)The landlord has also not provided any evidence of the cost to remedy the damage. (e)For the above reasons I find that the claim is not proved on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord is seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order. If a party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has applied for suppression but as they have not been successful with the claim the application for suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5472847 — Property damage at 28 Barnes Street, Glenwood, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5472847 — Property damage at 28 Barnes Street, Glenwood, Timaru 7910

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

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

Frequently asked questions