Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5103728 — Property damage
Decided 19 Mar 2025 · Published 19 Mar 2025 · Application 5103728
- Property damage
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.
- Dina Meas must pay [The landlord/s] $2,600 via the bond as calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Two calls to the tenant went unanswered. I was satisfied adequate service had completed via an email address for service and I continued with the hearing after the second call also went unanswered.
- I record that after the hearing concluded, the current owner of the tenant number contacted the Registry regarding the reminder messages. It appears that number is now in use by another person rather than the tenant. The landlord should be aware of this possibility.
- The landlord has applied for refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- A request after the hearing was submitted for rent arrears in-lieu of notice. This was not raised in the application or hearing and is not dealt with here.
- The claim for carpet cleaning is dismissed due to a lack of evidence (and the subsequent replacement of badly damaged carpet).
- A claim for oven replacement is dismissed as there is no evidence of tenant careless or intentional damage. It is therefore treated as wear and tear.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- 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.
- 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. The excess here was $1000.00.
- 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.
- The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Two doors were damaged and replaced. Photos and an invoice evidence the damage and cost. b. One set of blinds was badly damaged and replaced. I am satisfied the damage was more than wear and tear and the invoiced cost is awarded. c. The carpet throughout was replaced. The photos show the carpet badly damaged. An invoice for $3,795.00 was produced. Entry photos show the carpet as being of some age and condition such that depreciation must be considered. The premises were purchased in 2018 and the carpet was not new at that time. I have applied a 45% depreciation to reflect the age and condition of the carpet (rounded to the bond total).
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- 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 calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan. Filing fee
- Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
- Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.