Tenant Liable for Repairing Damaged Cooktop
📌 In brief
The Tenants tried to get back money withheld from their bond refund after a cooktop was damaged. The Landlord said the Tenants should pay for the repairs because the damage wasn't fair wear and tear. The Tenancy Tribunal agreed with the Landlord, saying the Tenants were careless and had to pay for the repairs.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant can be liable for the cost of repairs if the Landlord proves the damage was caused during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear, and the Tenant fails to prove the damage was not caused by any careless act or omission.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenants' application to recover withheld bond refund was dismissed, while the Landlord's cross-application to retain the cost of repairing the damaged cooktop was allowed.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenants applied to recover $737.67 withheld from their bond refund, claiming the damage to the cooktop was not their fault. The Landlord argued the Tenants were liable for the cost of repairs. The Tribunal found the damage was not fair wear and tear and was caused by the Tenants' carelessness, dismissing the Tenants' application and allowing the Landlord's cross-application.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5168633 1
[2025] NZTT 5168633, 5185655
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT AUCKLAND | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenants
RESPONDENT: [redacted] For [COMPANY]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The Tenant’s application is dismissed.
2. The Tenants must pay $27 to the Landlord immediately.
3. The Landlord is entitled to retain the $737.67 cost of repairing the damaged cooktop.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. There are two applications. The Tenants have applied to recover the $737.67 withheld from their bond refund. The Landlord has filed a cross application, seeking to retain the $737.67, which was the cost of repairing damage to a near new cooktop in the premises. The Tenants say they should not be liable for that damage.
The damaged cooktop
3. The Tenants say that the cooktop was damaged during the tenancy when a plastic cup fell from a cupboard and landed on the cooktop, cracking a corner of the glass cooktop cover. The Landlord says that the Tenants should be liable for the cost of repairs and has provided an invoice dated from [COMPANY] for the $737.67 cost of performing the required repairs.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5168633 2
4. The Tenants say that they should not be liable. They say that the falling plastic cup should not have caused the damage to the cooktop and that the damage was instead due to by a manufacturing defect or should otherwise have been covered by the manufacturer’s warranty.
The law
5. Under section 49A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), there is a general principle that a tenant has no liability or obligation to meet the cost of any damage to the premises. However, relevant to the facts of this case, under section 49B of the RTA, a tenant can be liable where:
a. the Landlord proves that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear; and
b. the Tenant does not prove that the damage was not caused by any careless act or omission.
My assessment
6. I am satisfied that the damage to the cooktop occurred during the tenancy. The Tenants also accepted that the damage occurred during the tenancy. They say that the damage occurred when one of the Tenant’s was reaching for a plastic cup from a cupboard above the cooktop. The Tenants say that the plastic cup fell from the cupboard onto the cooktop, causing the damaging the glass.
7. I am also satisfied that this damage was more than fair wear and tear. Fair wear and tear is 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. See the discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. The damage to the cooktop was not caused by deterioration or the ordinary operation of natural forces. The damage was caused by impact from a falling cup. Both parties agreed that this is not fair wear and tear.
8. Because the Landlord has proven that the damage occurred during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear, to avoid liability for this damage, the Tenants must prove they did not carelessly cause or permit the damage. I accept that the Tenants’ actions were not deliberate, but I find that the actions of the Tenant were nonetheless careless, in that the damage was caused through the lack of attention, care or precaution by the Tenant. Based on the evidence I heard, the damage happened when a Tenant reached into a cupboard above her head, and then either dropped or knocked a cup onto the cooktop, causing the glass at the corner of the cooktop to crack.
9. As the Landlord pointed out, the Tenant should have known of the need to exercise care around the cooktop, and to have understood that the cooktop could
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5168633 3
be damaged by a falling object. By reaching above her head for a cup, and either knocking or dropping the cup onto the cooktop, I find that the Tenant did not exercise the necessary care.
10. The Tenants say that a plastic cup should not have caused the damage to the cooktop and that the Landlord should not be entitled to recover this amount as it should have made a claim against the manufacturer’s warranty to cover the cost of repairs.
11. Again, it is for the Tenants to prove that the falling cup should not have caused the damage to the cooktop and that the damage was instead due to by a manufacturing defect or should otherwise have been covered by the manufacturer’s warranty. The Tenants have not discharged this onus. They led no evidence as to the existence of any manufacturing defect that would have made the cooktop overly susceptible to damage (other than the evidence of the damage itself) and led no evidence to show that cooktops cannot ordinarily be damaged by plastic objects falling from above.
12. Consequently, I am not satisfied that the Tenants have proven that it is more likely that the damage was attributable to an inherent flaw in the cooktop. Further, given my finding that the damage was caused by low-level carelessness, it is questionable whether any manufacturer’s warranty would apply. The Tenants are therefore liable.
13. As in the case, 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 cost of the repair, 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) of the RTA.
14. The repair cost $737.67. That is the amount that the Landlord is entitled to recover as it is less than the insurance excess of $1,400 and less than four week’s rent.
Filing fee
15. Because it has been wholly successful in its claim, the Landlord is entitled to recover the filing fee of $27. I order accordingly.
[NAME]
28 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5168633 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5168633 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].
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The damage to the cooktop was caused by a plastic cup falling from a cupboard, which was not fair wear and tear.
- The Tenants did not prove that the damage was not caused by any careless act or omission.
- The Tenants were careless in handling the cup, leading to the damage of the cooktop.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The Tenants argued that the damage was due to a manufacturing defect and should have been covered by the manufacturer’s warranty.
- The Tenants did not provide any evidence to support their claim that the damage was due to a manufacturing defect.
- The Tenants claimed that a plastic cup should not have caused such significant damage to the cooktop.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenants' application to recover the withheld bond refund was dismissed, and the Landlord's cross-application to retain the cost of repairing the damaged cooktop was allowed.
What was the dispute about?
The Tenants wanted to recover money withheld from their bond refund after a cooktop was damaged, while the Landlord wanted to retain the cost of repairs.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the Tenants were liable for the cost of repairs because the damage was not fair wear and tear and was caused by their carelessness.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 49A and 49B, were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was whether the damage to the cooktop was caused by the Tenants' carelessness and was not fair wear and tear.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the Tenants, who brought the initial application.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should be careful not to damage rental property through carelessness, as they may be liable for the cost of repairs.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence of the damage to the cooktop and the invoice for the repair costs mattered in the decision.