Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5033953 — Property damage at 20 Heke Street, Kaikohe 0405
Decided 27 Jun 2025 · Published 27 Jun 2025 · Application 5033953
- Property damage
Order
- [The tenant/s] must pay Northland Circle Real Estate Limited (as agent for Symon and [The landlord/s] $4,181.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
Background
- The adjournment order dated 8 May sets out the background to this application.
- The second hearing took place by phone on 19 June 2025. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Timmins and Ms Loane represented the landlord. The claim
- The landlord’s claim seeks:
- Inorganic rubbish removal and disposal $70.00
- Replace damaged bench top $298.00
- Replace damaged glass in toilet $158.05
- Replace damaged wall panel heater $111.19
- Replace damaged kitchen cabinets $1210.45
- Repairing damage to walls/doors etc $1863.80
- Replace damaged internal door handle $37.54
- Replace missing external door handle $59.18
- Freight/trailer hire $412.37
- Dump fees for rubbish $50.00
- Replace 2 missing wardrobes $548.00
- Kitchen hinges broken $152.69
- Paint/silicone for repairs $311.56
- Replace missing shower waste cap $10.00
- Ms Te Tomo accepted the claims for rubbish removal, re-glazing the broken window, and replacing the shower waste cap.
- The bond was released to the landlord and applied to water rates, cleaning, inorganic rubbish removal (first load), and wall / door repairs (partial).
- At the second hearing Ms Timmins confirmed that: a. There is no entry inspection report. b. The kitchen was not brand new at the beginning of the tenancy. Kitchen benchtop
- Ms Timmins’ photographs show quite extensive blistering and water damage on the benchtop at the end of the tenancy.
- Ms Te Tomo said that there were existing blisters on the benchtop at the start of her tenancy, and these got worse over the course of her three and half year tenancy.
- Ms Timmins initially said that the kitchen was new at the start of the tenancy, but at the second hearing she clarified that it was not new. Ms Timmins provided two photographs taken during Ms Te Tomo’s first inspection. The photographs do not show any obvious damage to the benchtop, but they are not close-up photographs.
- I am satisfied that: a. There was some existing minor damage to the top at the start of tenancy. I accept Ms Te Tomo’s oral evidence on that point. b. The extent of damage to the top during Ms Te Tomo’s tenancy is beyond fair wear and tear. c. The other damage to the kitchen cabinets shows that this area was treated roughly during the tenancy. d. The benchtop and cabinetry are the more basic / low cost type, and a shorter lifespan must be expected. e. The extent of damage necessitated replacement.
- Having regard to those factors my finding is that the tenant is liable for the replacement of the kitchen benchtop but I will apply depreciation of two-thirds to the replacement cost claimed. Kitchen cabinets and hinges
- Ms Timmins show that the kitchen cabinetry and doors were damaged during the tenancy.
- The damage is a combination of water damage and physical damage. Ms Timmins said that the damage was caused by young children climbing on the doors.
- The photographs show hinges pulled out, one door entirely off, and water damage.
- The damage is significantly beyond fair wear and tear, and there is no evidence or argument about existing damage.
- The extent of damage justifies replacement of the cabinetry.
- The tenant is liable for the replacement. Because there is no proven existing damage in respect of the cabinets, I will apply depreciation of one-third to the replacement cost. I have not applied deprecation to the cost of replacing the hinges. Doors and walls, door handles
- Ms Timmins’ photographs show extensive damage to walls and doors, mostly scrapes but also some large holes.
- The damage occurred during this tenancy and is beyond fair wear and tear.
- The Knight Service carried out work on the property totalling $4,268.99. Not all of this work related to repairing tenant damage.
- The landlord asked The Knight Service to clarify what amount related to tenant damage and they replied: I have worked through and estimated that the ceiling repair cost of work was about $1554.86. Below is the total amount of expense for the work done on the damages caused by the previous tenant: $2,714.13
- No breakdown or detail of how The Knight Service arrived at this figure was provided.
- $850.33 was applied to this debt from the bond, leaving a balance of $1,863.80.
- The claim also seeks $311.56 for repair materials purchased by the owner (paint, silicone, etc).
- The damage to walls and doors is substantial and extensive, and much of it appears to be intentional damage (holes at punch / kick height).
- I am satisfied that the total amount claimed is a fair and reasonable cost of repairing and painting the walls. The tenant is liable for this cost.
- As noted in the previous order, the parties went to a mediation in 2022 and the tenant agreed to pay $1,100 for repairs to the walls.
- The tenant paid that amount, but the repairs were not done. The tenant’s payment was credited to water rates arrears.
- As I said to the parties at the hearing, I do not think that this was the right approach. The mediated order was made on the basis that the payment was for repairs to walls. That is how the payment should have been applied.
- However, I accept Ms Timmins and Ms Loane’s argument that this does not have any effect on Ms Te Tomo’s overall liability. If that payment was now taken away from water rates and applied to wall repairs, it would put Ms Te Tomo $1,100 in arrears for water rates.
- Therefore, although it is not precisely accurate, I will make an order for the full amount claimed for repairs to walls and doors.
- The claim seeks the cost of replacing one internal door handle and one external handle.
- Ms Timmins’ photographs show that the internal handle is still on the door but it no longer works, and the external door handle is missing.
- Ms Timmins said that the internal handle simply stopped working and she did not recall the external door handle.
- Although it is not possible to know what caused the internal door handle to fail, there is sufficient evidence of careless / rough handling of the property during the tenancy to create an inference that it was tenant damage.
- On that basis I will hold the tenant liable for the cost of replacing the door handles. Panel heater
- The panel has scuffing damage and is bent / folded on one corner. Ms Te Tomo accepted that the scuffing damage happened during her tenancy but said that the corner damage was pre-existing.
- The landlord does not have evidence of the condition of the panel heater at the start of the tenancy.
- The claim seeks $111.19 to replace the panel heater.
- Having regard to depreciation and the pre-existing damage, my finding is that the tenant is liable for half of this cost. Other costs
- The claim seeks $548.00 to replace two free-standing wardrobes.
- Ms Te Tomo said that there was only one free-standing wardrobe at the start of her tenancy. By the end of her tenancy the wardrobe was disintegrating (the back was separating) so she disposed of it.
- The landlord does not have evidence that there were two wardrobes in the property at the start of the tenancy.
- The damage that Ms Te Tomo describes does not sound like fair wear and tear, but I have limited information about the age and beginning condition of the wardrobe.
- I will award the cost of replacing one wardrobe, but I will apply depreciation of 50% to the new replacement cost claimed.
- The cost of trailer hire is part of the claim for repairs, and is fair and reasonable. Filing fee
- The landlord has been largely successful in this application and I will also award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00.