Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4545149 — Property damage at Unit 1, 446 Wilsons Road North, Waltham, Christchurch
Decided 22 Jul 2025 · Published 22 Jul 2025 · Application 4545149
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
- Rent arrears
Order
- [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Twinky Holdings Limited $17,693.06 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the $2,600 bond to the landlord.
- The landlord’s claims are otherwise dismissed.
- The tenants’ application is dismissed.
Reasons
- This order was corrected on 22 July 2025 by substituting Twinky Holdings Limited for Rata Holdings Limited in paragraph 1 of the order. As the landlord, Twinky Holdings Limited should have been named in the original order. The order is otherwise unchanged.
- The hearings for these applications took place on 29 May and 11 July 2023. The landlord and both tenants attended the hearings. The landlord was represented by Mr Withers and Ms Blythe of Rata Holdings Limited who the landlord appointed as property manager during the tenancy.
- The tenants have applied for compensation for interference with their quiet enjoyment of the premises and a change of property manager.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
- This tenancy began on 1 August 2021. The premises are a two bedroomed town house, and they were newly built when the tenancy began.
- The tenants occupied the premises with three children and, at least at one time, four cats and two dogs. There was some dispute about over how many pets the landlord had permitted. The more important point is that the premises were not suited for that extent of occupation.
- After Rata Holdings took over as the property manager, they became concerned about how the tenants were treating the premises and there were some frank exchanges of views between them and tenants. Rata wanted the tenants to remove one of the dogs and to keep the premises in a cleaner and tidier condition and to take better care of them.
- The tenants felt that Rata was being unfair and that they were unjustifiably interfering with their use of the premises. They felt that Rata was telling them how to live in their home.
- The landlord’s concerns did not abate, and Rata gave notice of a property inspection for 20 April 2023. They attended then and found that the tenants were not there and that they could not enter due to the tenants fitting an additional lock on the door. They called in a locksmith to gain access.
- When they entered the premises, they found them damaged and in an extremely untidy and unclean condition. I have seen the photographs Rata took of the premises at the time, and I would describe the condition of the premises as being at or close to the worst that I have seen.
- There was no sign of anyone living in the premises and, in my view, they were unliveable in that condition. There was a note on the kitchen bench that read, To whom it may concern This is our notice to end our tenancy at 1/446 Wilsons Rd Nth as of April 4 th 2023. Sheree and [The tenant/s]
- Rata and the landlord took this to mean that the tenants had vacated and surrendered possession of the premises to the landlord. They therefore took possession and began the task of remediating the premises.
- Rata contacted the tenants at the time to try to get confirmation of their intentions. The tenants’ messages to Rata in response were abusive and they certainly did nothing to make Rata believe that the tenants wished to retain possession. Termination and Rent
- The tenants said that they had not surrendered possession of the premises to the landlord and that was not the intention or meaning of the note they left. They had paid rent to 15 April, but they later claimed that they were due a rent refund and that they were not willing to do anything about the condition of the premises, such as removing rubbish, unless they received it. The landlord could see no reason to give them a refund and neither can I.
- The tenants’ argument that the note was not intended for the landlord is not credible. They had plainly vacated the premises and they were aware that Rata was coming on 20 April for an inspection. The tenants must have known that Rata would see the note and that they would take it to mean that they wished to give up possession of the premises.
- I find, therefore, that the tenancy ended on 20 April when the landlord accepted the tenants’ surrender of the tenancy. I have therefore awarded the rent owing from 16 to 20 April as rent arrears. The landlord argued that the tenants should have given three weeks’ notice of termination (the required notice at that time was in fact four weeks) and that they are entitled to rent in lieu of notice. I reject that. The landlord took possession on 20 April and so that is when the tenancy ended. The Law in Relation of the Landlord’s Other Claims
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
- The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises.
- To recover compensation for damage to the premises the landlord must prove that the 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.
- 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).
- 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). Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
- Tenants are liable in full 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.
- 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.
- 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 calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Claims General
- The tenants said that they had not ended the tenancy and that they were therefore entitled to have time to attend the premises to comply with their end- of-tenancy obligations. They said that if they had been given that time, they would have done so.
- I reject both those assertions. I have decided that the tenancy ended on 20 April and so the landlord was not required to allow the tenants back on the premises after that date. I also do not accept that the tenants would have returned to the premises in any case. It is obvious that, for whatever reason (and there was reference to Mrs Densley’s ill health), the tenants had lost the ability to reverse the deterioration of the condition of the premises.
- In any case, the condition of the premises was such that it was beyond the tenants to remediate them. If they had any ability to rectify things, they would not have allowed the premises to get into such an egregious state of squalor in the first place.
- As well, many of the claims, and the majority in value of them, were irremediable without professional intervention and substantial cost. Carpet and Lino
- The carpet in the premises was damaged during the tenancy beyond saving. It was extensively contaminated with pet urine and there was animal faeces in places. The lino was also damaged and needed to be replaced.
- The tenants denied that the carpet needed to be replaced. But there is compelling evidence that it did. The landlord made an insurance claim, and the loss adjuster declared that it could not be salvaged. Photographs showing the premises after the carpet had been lifted showed that staining had gone through the carpet and underlay to the concrete floor below.
- The tenants claimed that the carpet upstairs was undamaged. I don’t accept that. The loss adjuster referred to the carpet throughout the premises being contaminated. The insurer has accepted the landlord’s claim for damage to all the carpet in the premises. Given that and the state of the premises generally, I am satisfied that all the carpet was damaged and needed replacing.
- I find that the tenants’ pets used the carpet as their toilet. The extent of the contamination was such that the tenants must have been aware that it was happening, and they did not prevent it. Arguably, that makes the damage intentional in which case the landlord’s insurance would be irrelevant to the award that the Tribunal is entitled to make. The landlord may limit its claim to the uninsured element of damage. In this case the landlord has accepted that the carpet damage was likely accidental in the sense that the tenants were unaware it was happening. It has therefore limited its claims for damage to the carpet and the outside pavers to the applicable insurance excesses.
- One of the reasons that this case was adjourned after the hearing was to allow the landlords to progress their insurance claim. The landlord has updated the Tribunal regarding it insurance claim and confirmed that its insurance will cover the carpet and pavers damage subject to an excess of $550. The insurer has applied an excess for each of the five rooms of damaged carpet. One excess applies to the pavers.
- The landlord produced a quotation for replacing the carpet and lino in the sum of $6,763.15 which I consider reasonable. There is reference in the correspondence to fraying of the carpet in places and the landlord appears to accept that it was not good quality and had not been laid well. Given that, and the 20 months of the tenancy, it would be appropriate to apply a 25% discount to the cost of the new carpet and flooring. That would produce an award of $5,072.36 for the new floor coverings.
- There is no breakdown between the carpet and lino cost. It is reasonable to assume that the carpet would account for 80% of the cost making it $4,057.89 and the lino $1,104.47.
- The cost of new carpet alone exceeds the five excesses. Therefore, the landlord is awarded $2,750 for the carpet and $1,014.47 for the lino making a total for floor coverings of $3,764.47. There does not appear to be any insurance cover for the lino. Wall Damage
- The photographs showed extensive damage to walls in the premises. Much of the damage appears to have been caused by fixings installed by the tenants. That makes the damage intentional. Most of it is beyond fair wear and tear.
- The landlord produced quotation in the sum of $10,913 for the repair and painting of walls and joinery including $983.25 for painting outside where there had been tagging to the front wall. I am not satisfied that the tenants are responsible for that. The wall is open to the footpath, and anyone could have done it.
- I am also not satisfied that the remaining cost of some $10,000 was proved on the evidence. In my view, it is excessive. I have therefore awarded the sum of $5,000 which I regard as the reasonable cost of remedying the wall damage proved to have been caused during the tenancy. Rubbish and Cleaning
- There was a considerable amount of rubbish left at the premises and they needed extensive and thorough cleaning. The awards I have made were proved from the photographs and invoices that were produced. Locks
- The landlords were entitled to change the locks and there was an invoice for the cost awarded. Outside Work
- The outside work consisted of dismantling and removing structures that the tenants had erected and general tidying. The amount awarded was proved by the production of photographs and an invoice. Loss of Rent
- The landlords have claimed loss of rent because the premises were not in a condition to be relet for a considerable time after the tenancy ended. I accept that. They were relet on 14 July 2023, nearly three months after the tenancy ended. Given the state of the premises when the tenancy ended, I accept that it would have taken weeks to put them into a rentable condition.
- There was likely to be a vacant period between tenancies in any case. I find that it is reasonable to award six weeks loss of rent. Management Costs
- The landlord claims $2750 for Rata’s costs for their time involved with the remedial work. They acted as project managers for the work and dealt with the landlord’s insurance claim.
- The Tribunal is normally chary about awarding agents’ costs in these circumstances. Although they may arise from the tenant’s breach, the Tribunal’s approach is usually to treat them as a landlord’s overhead. To some extent this is a line-drawing exercise because if they were routinely allowed, it could lead to excessive claims and liability.
- But in this case, because the remedial work was so extensive, I find that an award is justified. I exclude any time spent on the insurance claim. I find that an award in the sum of $1,380 is reasonable. Other Claims
- The shower caddy was missing at the end of the tenancy and the landlords produced an invoice for the cost of replacing it.
- Blinds in the premises were damaged beyond fair wear and had to be replaced. There was an invoice for the cost of replacing them. I have also awarded the cost of installing the blinds and other work that was required due to the new carpet and miscellaneous work and expenses for which I find the tenants liable.
- The tenants’ animals scratched some aluminium joinery and the landlords’ contractors were able to remove the scratches. I have awarded the cost of doing so based on an invoice.
- The landlords’ claim for a new oven is dismissed. I accept that the tenants left food in the oven, but I do not accept that odour of the food impregnated the oven necessitating its replacement. Ovens are not made from material that absorbs odours and a thorough clean is all that should have been needed.
- I accept that the tenants caused paint to be on the pavers outside. The cost of water blasting them to remove the paint based on an invoice is $885.50. I have awarded the insurance excess applicable to the landlord’s claim in the sum of $550.
- I accept that the exterior of the windows needed cleaning due to a film that the tenants had affixed to them and that the premises needed a final clean after the remedial work was completed. I have awarded the $220 as claimed.
- I dismiss the claim for the cost of weed matting and stones outside. I am not satisfied that it was necessary due to any breach by the tenants of their obligations. Tenants’ Claims
- The tenant’s claims are based on the assertion that the agents overstepped the mark and became intrusive in their requirements. There is also an allegation of an improper breach notice.
- The short answer to the tenants’ claims is that the landlord’s concerns were entirely justified. If the tenants had acted on them, the outcome could have been less painful all around. Some pain was unavoidable in my view.
- Some of Rata’s communications were quite trenchant but they were justified.
- The tenants’ application is therefore dismissed. R Armstrong 6 December 2023 (corrected 22 July 2025)