Tribunal Awards Landlord $1,180 From Bond
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant must pay the landlord $1,180 from the bond to cover rent arrears and some repair costs. The decision was based on the evidence presented during the hearing.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is liable for damages exceeding fair wear and tear if they cannot prove they did not cause the damage carelessly or intentionally.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal awarded the landlord $1,180 from the bond, reducing the initial claim due to insufficient evidence.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal awarded the landlord $1,180 from the bond after determining that the tenant was responsible for rent arrears and certain repair costs, excluding fair wear and tear.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4985671 1
[2025] NZTT 4985671
TENANCY TRIBUNAL - Video Location
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] $1,180.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
Description Landlord Tenant Rent arrears $762.16 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Repairs (part contribution) $390.84 Total award $1,180.00 Bond $1,180.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $0.00
2. The [COMPANY] is to pay the bond of $1,180.00 (5194995-006) to [COMPANY] immediately.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4985671 2
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. They were overseas and somewhat unprepared to commence the hearing.
2. Two calls to the tenant went unanswered and to voicemail. After the first call went to voicemail, a brief message was left introducing myself and explaining the purpose of the call. The message concluded with the advice I would try a second time after waiting some minutes. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the second call also went unanswered.
3. The tenancy agreement provided was incomplete and did not provide the insurance information.
4. The landlord provided the insurance information after the hearing. The tenancy agreement as provided again stills remains incomplete. However, I have sufficient information to satisfy me that there is no appropriate insurance cover for the tenant damage.
5. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for rent?
6. The tenancy ended on 20 August 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $762.16. This is revised downwards from the $1,180.00 initially claimed, after a subsequent landlord reconciliation of banking records.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
7. 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.
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
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4985671 3
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.
12. The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
a. A hole in one wall.
b. Spot paint damage after the removal of a number of stick on wall fixtures, affixed during the tenancy.
13. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
14. The landlord had submitted a repair quote for $1,430 ex GST. The description of tasks stated:
• Remedial work, make good from tenant damage,
• Replace section of gib to wall, plaster, and paint
• Remove stickers from ceiling and walls to bedroom
• Plaster and paint
• Allowed to supply paint/plaster and consumables
15. The landlord completed the work itself. It sought compensation on the basis of the quote ex GST amount.
16. Limited photos were provided but one shows the hole in the wall while a later photo shows a quality repair. I am satisfied the landlord carried out the repairs as claimed.
17. A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
18. The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated:
“…[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4985671 4
evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
19. Having reviewed the evidence I have some concerns regarding tenant liability for the full cost as claimed. The quote does not separate how it is applied to the separate damaged areas. The hole (the most significant damage) appears to correspondent with the area on that wall the door handle would be likely to strike if opened with force. The photo does not indicate any doorstop was in place – a protective measure that would appear reasonable. That, combined with depreciation considerations given the likely age of the wall finish, means I accept some tenant liability but make a reduced award. The lack of ingoing comparative photos means I rely on interpreting what I can from the limited photos provided.
20. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In considering depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan as best I can ascertain.
21. For the reason above reasons I make an award towards the cost of repair of $380.94. This amount appears a reasonable contribution towards the landlord repairs, balancing the damages and the likely cause along, with the overall condition of the walls at the end of the tenancy. That the amount is the balance of the bond is intentional and reflects a rounding for administrative ease of collection.
22. As the landlord has been substantially successful I return the application filing fee.
[NAME]
11 February 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4985671 5
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/
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord proved the amount of rent owing at the end of the tenancy was $762.16.
- The landlord proved that damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear.
- The landlord successfully claimed reimbursement for the application filing fee.
- The landlord provided sufficient information to show there was no appropriate insurance cover for the tenant damage.
- The landlord successfully proved they carried out the repairs as claimed.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's initial claim for rent arrears was reduced after reconciliation of banking records.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision awarded the landlord $1,180 from the bond to cover rent arrears and some repair costs.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the amount of rent arrears and the responsibility for repair costs related to damage to the rental property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was responsible for the rent arrears and some repair costs because the damage exceeded fair wear and tear and the tenant could not prove otherwise.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 49B, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the evidence showing that the damage was not fair wear and tear and the tenant could not prove they did not cause the damage.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for 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 if they cannot prove that damage to the rental property was fair wear and tear, they may be held responsible for repair costs.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered included rent records and repair quotes, as well as photos of the damage.