Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4776939 — Property damage
Decided 29 Sept 2025 · Published 29 Sept 2025 · Application 4776939
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
- State of repair
- Smoke alarms
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details. 2.
Reasons
Background
- The tenancy began on 5 November 2021.
- On 17 November 2023, the Tenancy Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy due to rent arrears 1 . The bond was released to the landlord in that order.
- The landlords filed this application on 8 January 2024. The claim seeks extensive repairs, cleaning, and other costs. The total amount claimed by the landlord is $74,862.77.
- The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 1 May 2024. [The landlord/s] attended the hearing. There was no appearance by Mr O’Brien.
- Notice of the hearing was correctly served on Mr O’Brien 2 . The hearing proceeded in Mr O’Brien’s absence 3 Repairs to walls and painting
- The claim seeks the cost of repairs to walls, replacement of a damaged door, and re-painting of the interior.
- Tenants are liable for damage that occurs during the tenancy and that is beyond fair wear and tear 4 .
- The landlords provided photographs showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
- The photographs show: a. Several large holes, grouped together, on a wall in the internal garage. The holes were covered with a mirror when the landlords re-took possession. 1 [redacted] 2 Section 91A(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 3 Section 92 RTA 4 Section 49B(2) RTA b. Marks on the walls in the garage. c. Door between garage and house damaged. d. A hole in the wall in a bedroom. e. A hole in the wall in the hall, around door handle height. f. Hole in wardrobe door. g. Small hole in wall near window. h. Abrasion / impact on the corners of the walls in several areas (kitchen / dining, hall). i. Gouges, dents, and chips on multiple walls. j. Nails and picture hooks left on walls.
- The large holes, dents, and gouges are damage that is beyond fair wear and tear. Some of the damage (in particular, the damage in the garage) appears to be intentional damage.
- The more minor marks and chips are damage that is in the nature of wear and tear, but the extent of that type of damage is beyond fair wear and tear for this two-year tenancy.
- The damage described above occurred during this tenancy. The landlords provided a copy of the entry inspection report dated 5 November 2021. The report includes reasonably detailed notes about the condition of the premises. The report notes some hooks and nails and some ‘marks’ on the walls at the start of the tenancy. The landlords also provided ‘before and after’ photographs of the damaged areas.
- The repairs to the walls were carried out by [building company].
- The relevant invoice is INV2096 dated 19 January 2024. The total invoiced is $15,595.04. The invoice includes work on the floors (discussed below) and the walls. One of the specified items on the invoice relates to walls only – “Professional plastering and sanding of new Gib wallboard and various patches throughout the house as required” ($1,400.00 plus GST). The other items on the invoice – labour, materials, travel, etc – are not separated between flooring and walls.
- The landlords estimated that $10,000.00 of the invoice relates to floors and the balance ($5,595.04) to walls.
- The landlords also seek the cost of re-painting all of the interior of the house.
- The painting was done by [painting and tiling company] who were sub- contracted by [building company]. The cost of their work is detailed on an invoice from [building company] dated 31 January 2024. The cost of the work was $19,363.70.
- There is then a further invoice for “touch up” painting work by the same sub- contractor. That invoice is dated 9 April 2024, for $1,324.80.
- The landlords also purchased some materials themselves (invoices were provided) and contributed some labour.
- The total amount claimed for repairs to walls, replacement of a door, and painting is $27,819.56. The landlords received a payment of $2,699.48 from their insurer, for some of the wall damage.
- My findings are: a. The tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurred during the tenancy. That is all of the large holes, dents, and gouges, and a proportion of the more minor marks / chips. b. The landlords’ evidence is sufficient to show that it was necessary to re- paint the interior due to the nature and extent of the tenant damage. c. The landlords’ assessment of the repair costs associated with wall repairs is fair and reasonable. The landlords provided photographs of the repairs in progress, which show the number of areas of damage that had to be repaired before the walls could be painted. d. The painting cost is proven. e. Depreciation must apply to the painting costs, to take into account the age of the paint and also the fact that re-painting the entire interior includes remedying all of the damage, including fair wear and tear damage that the tenant is not legally liable for. I will apply depreciation of 25% to the painting costs.
- The tenant is liable for: Damage repair Repairs (portion of TBC invoice):$5,595.04 Repairs (landlords labour and minor materials):$656.27 Replace door between garage and house:$879.75 Sub total:$7,131.06 Less insurance: $2,699.48 Damage repairs total: $4,431.58 Painting Painting cost: $20,688.60 Less depreciation 25%: $5,172.13 Total: $15,516.47 Water damage to flooring
- [Landlord 1] carried out an inspection on 22 August 2023. At that inspection she noticed that the flooring in the kitchen was somewhat warped. She assumed that it was due to water pooling on top of the floor.
- On 2 October 2023, the landlords issued a breach notice detailing a long list of “items which caused us concern” from the August inspection, including “floor to be repaired/replaced once assessment has been done on extent of damage caused”.
- At the next inspection on 2 November 2023 the flooring in the kitchen was very wet, to the extent that water came up through the floor when [Landlord 1] walked on it. The flooring had lost its structural integrity.
- [Landlord 1] spoke with Mr O’Brien at the final inspection (3 December 2023). He seemed unaware of the problem with the flooring. He suggested [Landlord 1] that the floor was wet because they mopped it every day.
- Further investigation showed that: a. Two underfloor pipes in the kitchen had been damaged by rodents. One was a dishwasher pipe and the other was the “hot water fusio feed” (per an invoice from [plumbing company]). b. Water leaking from those damaged pipes had tracked through the kitchen into the hall and bathroom.
- The damage necessitated replacement of the flooring in the kitchen and part of the hallway and bathroom. Replacement of the flooring in the bathroom required removal of tiles and the shower cubicle, which then had to be replaced.
- The repair work was large scale and costly. The landlords provided invoices totalling $41,382.47 including replacement of flooring, plumbing work, remedial work in the bathroom (removing tiles then re-tiling, removing and replacing shower unit, replacing vanity), and replacement of kitchen cabinetry.
- The landlords’ insurer classified the damage to the floor as gradual damage. The landlords’ policy has cover for gradual damage with a policy limit of $2,000.00 per event, and an excess of $1,000.00 per event.
- The landlords’ insurer accepted each proven leak as a separate event. The landlords received $2,000.00 from their insurer.
- Tenants have a duty to “notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs” 5 .
- If a tenant fails to meet that duty, the tenant can be held liable for any resultant damage that could have been avoided if the tenant had notified the landlord as soon as possible after discovery.
- In 2019, changes were made to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 regarding a tenant’s liability for damages. Sections 49A-49E were brought into the Act.
- Section 49A states: Except as provided in section 49B, a tenant has no liability or obligation, and must not be required to: (a) Meet the cost of making good any destruction of, or damage to, the premises; or (b) Indemnify the landlord against the cost of making good the destruction or damage; or (c) Pay damages related to the destruction or damage
- Section 49B provides that: a. Tenants are not excused from liability for damage that was “intentionally done or caused”. b. Tenants are liable for damage that is carelessly caused, but the tenant’s liability is limited to the lesser of: i. The policy excess, “if the property is insured against the loss or damage”; or ii. The equivalent of four-weeks’ rent.
- [Landlord 1] noted that the tenants accumulated some rubbish at the property, and that this would have encouraged rodents onto the property.
- Tenants have an obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy.
- I am not persuaded that the tenant intentionally or carelessly caused the rodent damage to the pipes. The property is in a rural area. Rats and mice are commonplace. The rubbish was not excessive, and it was not piled up underneath or inside the house. It appears that the tenant was making reasonable efforts to control rats and mice – the plumber explained to [Landlord 1] that the rats probably chewed through the pipes because they had consumed rat poison and were desperate for water.
- The alternative basis for the claim against the tenant is that he failed to notify the landlord of “damage to the premises or the need for any repairs”. 5 Section 40(1)(d) RTA
- The leaks were underneath the flooring. Damage to the flooring was apparent when [Landlord 1] carried out the inspection in August. However, the cause of the visible damage was not obvious at that time.
- The visible condition of the flooring deteriorated over the next few months. The landlords were not informed about this.
- It is not possible to know whether the water had already tracked into the hallway and bathroom by August 2023, or whether this occurred some time between August and November.
- Based on the brief conversation between [Landlord 1] and Mr O’Brien at the end of the tenancy, it seems that Mr O’Brien was oblivious to the water damage.
- It seems likely that some signs of water damage to the flooring would have been noticeable before the August 2023 inspection. However, it is very difficult to ascertain when Mr O’Brien discovered the damage, triggering his duty to inform [Landlord 1].
- My findings are: a. It is likely that the damage was obvious enough that Mr O’Brien should have discovered it before [Landlord 1] inspection in August 2023. The tenant was obliged to inform [Landlord 1] at that point. b. The condition of the floor deteriorated in September / October. Mr O’Brien did not communicate with [Landlord 1] over this period. If he had done so, it is probable that [Landlord 1] would have determined that the damage was not caused by water on top of the floor but by water coming from underneath it. c. Mr O’Brien’s obligation to inform the landlord of the need for repairs included an obligation to inform the landlord when the water damage to the flooring extended and worsened. d. Mr O’Brien’s failure to notify [Landlord 1] of the signs of damage before August 2023, and his failure to notify her of the worsening water damage in September / October, amount to a breach of his duty under section 40(1)(d) RTA. e. The extent of damage worsened, and the cost of repairs increased, due to Mr O’Brien’s failure to notify the landlord. f. Section 49A RTA (quoted above) applies to all damage claims. g. The damage (meaning the damage that resulted from Mr O’Brien’s failure to notify the landlord) was not intentionally caused by Mr O’Brien. Intention requires a conscious act of inflicting damage, or allowing something to be done or to continue knowing that damage is almost certain to result 6 . As noted above, it seems that Mr O’Brien was simply oblivious to the damage to the flooring. When [the landlord/s] asked him about it, he thought it may have been due to excessive mopping. The damage is more accurately described as careless. A tenant’s liability for careless damage is limited to the lesser of: -The policy excess, if the property is “insured against the destruction or damage”; or -The equivalent of four weeks’ rent. The reference to “insured against the destruction or damage” refers to the type of insurance cover, not to the cover amount or limit. In this instance the landlords had insurance cover for the gradual water damage, albeit with a low policy limit. Applying these principles, my finding is that the tenant’s liability for this damage is limited to the amount of the insurance excess, which is $1,000.00. Other damage (no insurance)
- The following damage is proven to have occurred during this tenancy, and is beyond fair wear and tear. The landlords’ insurance did not cover this damage. -Laundry tub damaged beyond repair $697.42. -Smoke alarms removed $63.88. -Replace damaged door locks $156.00. -Electrical plug damaged and ceiling fan switch missing $147.69. -Reinstate fencing removed by tenant $368.00 -Replace damaged and missing curtains $349.94 -Repair damaged blind in kitchen $86.30 -Repair insect screen roller doors $603.49 -Laundry bench and shelving damaged due to leak from tenant’s washing machine $416.98 -Cracked glass pane in garage exterior door $188.63 -Garage roller door damaged (would not close or lock) $184.00 6 Guo v Korck [2019] NZDC 1541 – a tenant permitting a dog to remain in the house knowing that the dog had urinated on the carpet several times amounted to intentional damage -Water pump taken by tenant $828.00. Other damage (insurance)
- There was some damage to the premises that the landlords’ insurer accepted as ‘storm damage’ and covered on that basis, subject to an excess of $1,000.00.
- The landlords claim includes two items of damage that the landlords believe is tenant damage and not storm damage, and they seek a portion of the excess (one-fifth, $200.00 each) for those two items.
- The first is damage to a garden shed. [Landlord 1]’s photographs show damage to the walls of the shed, consistent with the walls being pushed out from inside.
- The other is damage to the shade sails. At the start of the tenancy the shade sails were set up over an outdoor table. At the end of the tenancy the landlords found them taken down and rolled up. When they unrolled them, there were holes in the shade sails. [Landlord 1] argued that the holes appear to be burn holes, probably caused by the tenants having an outdoor fire underneath the shade sails. I agree that the pattern of damage shown in the photographs is consistent with this.
- The damage to the garden shed and shade sails is most likely to be careless damage by the tenant (or someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent).
- The tenant is liable for the cost incurred by the landlord in respect of the replacement of the shade sails and the shed, which is effectively $200.00 of excess for each.
- These parts of the claim are proven. Missing chattels
- The tenants removed various chattels from the property, including some items that were attached to the house (TV brackets, lighting strips in kitchen).
- The following claims are proven (missing chattels): 2 x TV brackets, wi-fi lighting strips in kitchen, gas bottle, shower caddy, laundry baskets x 3, and door mat.
- The cost of replacing these items is proven (invoices provided). Lawns and gardens
- [Landlord 1] provided photographs showing the exterior of the property at the end of the tenancy.
- The lawns and gardens were very overgrown.
- The landlords paid a contractor to mow the lawns ($130.00). They also seek compensation for their own labour – 40 hours.
- The photographs show that the gardens were badly overgrown with weeds, but the claim for 40 hours of labour seems high. The standard that the tenant must meet is “reasonably tidy”.
- I will award 20 hours of labour at $35 per hour. Cleaning
- Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
- The landlords’ end of tenancy photos show that the premises did not meet that standard.
- The landlords carried out the cleaning themselves. Their claim seeks compensation for 30 hours of cleaning.
- The claim is fair and reasonable having regard to the landlords’ photographs.
- I will award compensation for 30 hours of cleaning at $35 per hour. Septic tank
- In June 2023, [drainage company] carried out work on the septic system on the instructions of the tenant.
- They emptied out the tank on 23 June, then returned on 29 June to empty it again.
- [Drainage company] issued an invoice for $2,210.25 on 14 August 2023.
- The landlords were not informed of any problems with the septic system.
- The [drainage company] invoice states that after the second emptying on 28 June the tank was “all clear ready for new pump and blower”.
- The tenant did not pay [drainage company]’s invoice and did not arrange for the new pump and blower to be installed.
- The landlords became aware of this at the end of the tenancy. [Drainage company] sought payment of its invoice.
- The landlords contacted [wastewater treatment company] their preferred contractor. [Wastewater treatment company] emptied the tank, serviced the system and replaced the pump. The total cost of this work was $2,321.05.
- The landlords disputed the amount of [drainage company]s invoice, but to resolve the matter they paid [drainage company] $2,000.00.
- The landlords made an insurance claim in respect of the WTS work, and the claim was accepted, with an excess of $1,000.00.
- In summary: a. The tenant failed to inform the landlord that the septic system failed in June 2023. b. The tenant contacted [drainage company], who emptied the tank and identified that the pump and blower had failed. c. The tenant did not proceed with replacement of the pump and blower, and they continued to use the system. d. By the time that the landlords became aware of the problem, the tank needed to be emptied again so that the pump and blower could be replaced. e. The landlords did not contract [drainage company] and because of the tenant’s failure to notify them of the problem, the landlords did not obtain any benefit from [drainage company]’s work. f. Because of this, the landlords incurred an avoidable cost of $2,000.00.
- The failure of the septic system was a loss that was covered by the landlords’ insurance, with an excess of $1,000.00.
- As discussed above, a tenant’s liability for any loss / damage that is caused carelessly is limited to the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess (if the property is insured against the loss), or the equivalent of four weeks’ rent (whichever is the lesser).
- That limitation does not apply to intentional damage.
- In respect of the water damage to the flooring, my finding was that the tenant’s failure to notify the landlord was not an intentional action but a careless failure to notice the nature and extent of the water damage.
- In this instance, it seems extremely likely that [drainage company] informed the tenant or his partner about pump failure. The tenant knew that the pump had failed, but continued to use the system.
- The obvious and unavoidable consequence was that the system had to be pumped out again.
- In this instance the tenant’s failure to notify the landlords, knowing exactly the nature of the problem, was an intentional action.
- Therefore the limitation does not apply, and the tenant is liable to the landlords for the extra cost that they incurred as a consequence of his failure to notify the landlords, which is the $2,000.00 that the landlords were required to pay to [drainage company]. Filing fee, name suppression
- The landlords have been successful in this application, and I must also award the landlords the filing fee of $20.44 7 .
- The landlords sought name suppression.
- Name suppression is granted on the basis that the landlord has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings 8 .