Landlord's Oven Damage Claim Rejected by Tenancy Tribunal
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a landlord's claim for damages to an oven, finding that the damage was probably caused by gradual wear and tear over time, and possibly by previous tenants, not solely by the current tenant.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord cannot recover damages for wear and tear unless they can prove the damage was caused by the tenant's actions during their tenancy.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claim for damages to the oven, finding insufficient evidence to attribute the damage solely to the tenant.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a landlord's claim for damages to an oven, ruling that the damage was likely caused by gradual deterioration and possibly by previous tenants, not solely by the current tenant.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5117391 1
[2025] NZTT 5117391
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
2. Both parties attended the hearing by video. The landlord’s agent and the landlord attended the hearing together with the tenant.
3. The landlord applied for compensation for damage to the oven at the premises. The landlord claimed insurance for the damage and is seeking $1,000.00 for the insurance excess.
4. The question to consider is whether the damage to the oven was caused by [NAME] during this tenancy.
5. The tenancy lasted for just over seven months from 22 March 2024 until 1 November 2024.
6. The damage to the oven was caused by an oven tray covered in tin foil which sat on the floor of the oven. The landlord obtained an opinion from [COMPANY], a local company servicing domestic appliances, which confirmed the cause of the damage and that it was irreparable.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5117391 2
7. The landlord produced two photographs of the damage both to the oven tray and the bottom of the oven. Just prior to the hearing the landlord produced a photograph of the oven taken on 21` March 2024, the day before the tenancy commenced. That photograph shows that there is a tin foil covered oven tray sitting on the bottom of the oven.
8. The agent said that at the end of the previous tenancy she took the tray out of the oven to inspect the bottom of the oven, noticed no damage, then returned the tray to the bottom of the oven. The previous tenancy lasted for three years and three months from December 2021 until March 2024.
9. The tenant’s evidence is that when she moved into the tenancy, she noticed the tin foil on the bottom of the oven. She did not notice that it covered a baking tray. The tenant said that she did not often use the oven and only noticed the tin foil covered oven tray when she was cleaning the premises prior to the tenancy ending. At that time, she replaced the tin foil for the first time. She said that she did not notice any damage to the oven.
10. On the evidence it is not clear that [NAME] caused the damage. There is no evidence to establish that the oven was free of damage when this tenancy commenced and even if there was there is evidence that the previous tenant likely used the oven with the tin foil lined tray at the bottom of the oven. Further, when this tenancy commenced the oven tray was already sitting on the bottom of the oven, as that is where it was returned by the landlord’s agent.
11. It is possible that the damage was caused by a gradual deterioration, but there is no evidence to establish this or that the damage was only caused during this tenancy. [NAME] and the previous tenant may have contributed to the damage and therefore it is not possible to attribute the damage solely to [NAME].
12. The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that [NAME] was solely responsible for the damage to the oven.
13. The landlord’s application is dismissed.
[NAME]
15 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5117391 3
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5117391 4
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5117391 5
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord could not prove the oven was undamaged when the tenancy started.
- The previous tenant likely used the oven with the tin foil-lined tray, potentially causing some damage.
- The oven tray was already on the bottom of the oven when the current tenancy began.
- The damage could have been a gradual deterioration, and it was not proven to have occurred only during this tenancy.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claim for damages to the oven.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the damage to the oven was caused by the tenant during their tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the damage was likely caused by gradual deterioration and possibly by previous tenants, not solely by the current tenant.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were cited in the judgment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the lack of evidence showing that the damage was caused solely by the tenant during their tenancy.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, it means that they need strong evidence to show that the damage was caused by the tenant during their tenancy.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs of the damaged oven and the landlord's testimony about the condition of the oven at the start of the tenancy mattered.