Tenancy Tribunal Rejects Landlord's Damage Claim, Returns Bond to Tenant
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a landlord's claim for damages to a fridge door, finding insufficient evidence to prove the damage occurred during the tenancy. The bond was returned to the tenant.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord must prove damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear to succeed in a claim against a tenant.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claim for damages, ordering the return of the bond to the tenant.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a landlord's claim for damages to a fridge door, finding insufficient evidence to prove the damage occurred during the tenancy. The bond was returned to the tenant.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5114970 1
[2025] NZTT 5114970
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted] Agent For [NAME]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed.
2. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $529.00 (6514851-001) to [NAME] immediately.
Description Landlord Tenant Total award Bond $529.00
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing via remote teleconference.
2. The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
3. The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a fridge door during the tenancy. The tenant denies causing the damage.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5114970 2
4. Before I consider the specific claim, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, as it is a landlord application, that means that it is for the landlord to establish their respective claim on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
5. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5114970 3
12. The landlord claims that the tenant caused a number of dents on the front of the fridge door. They say that this occurred during the tenancy and provided limited photographic evidence and email correspondence in support of this claim. The tenant is adamant that the dents in the door of the fridge were preexisting and has refused to pay for damage he says he did not cause. The tenant also says that the entry photographs supplied by the landlord are inconsistent with the state of the premises when he moved in.
13. The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. I find that the claim should fail for the following reasons.
14. The landlord has only provided an email quote to have the fridge door repaired. The tenancy ended in October 2024 and as at todays’ date, some five months later, the repairs have still not taken place. In order for an applicant to succeed with compensation for damage they must show actual loss. At the very least I would have expected an expense claim in the form of a paid invoice. This has not happened.
15. I am also not satisfied with the photographic evidence provided by the landlord in support of the claim. The photographic evidence is far from conclusive that there is damage and, if there is damage that this occurred during the tenancy. The landlord has only provided a limited number of photographs of the fridge before and after the tenancy. From the limited evidence provided I am far from convinced that the claim should be accepted.
16. The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for the alleged damage.
17. Accordingly, the landlord’s application must be dismissed.
18. Because the landlord has been unsuccessful in their application I do not reimburse the filing fee.
19. I also order that the bond is returned to the tenant.
[NAME]
14 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5114970 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5114970 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 tenant denied causing the damage to the fridge door.
- The landlord failed to provide conclusive photographic evidence of the damage.
- The landlord did not present a paid invoice for the repair of the fridge door.
- The landlord did not prove the damage occurred during the tenancy beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The landlord did not demonstrate actual loss due to the alleged damage.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord claimed the tenant caused dents on the fridge door during the tenancy.
- The landlord provided limited photographic evidence and email correspondence to support the claim.
- The landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to meet the civil law standard of proof.
- The landlord did not establish that the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
- The landlord did not show that the tenant was responsible for the alleged damage on the balance of probabilities.
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 a fridge door and ordered the return of the bond to the tenant.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant was responsible for damaging the fridge door during the tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the landlord failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the damage occurred during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most critical argument was the lack of sufficient evidence to prove the damage occurred during the 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?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have strong evidence to support their claim before bringing it to the Tenancy Tribunal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographic evidence and email correspondence were presented, but were found to be insufficient.