What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5207311 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5207311?

Cleaning: $933.69 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $741.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,251.42 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Unblock Drains And Gully Traps: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpets: $2,130.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains/Blinds: $1,173.27 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $850.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5207311?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5207311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11855815-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5207311 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5207311?

Cleaning: $933.69 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $741.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,251.42 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Unblock Drains And Gully Traps: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpets: $2,130.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains/Blinds: $1,173.27 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $850.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5207311?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5207311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11855815-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5207311 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5207311 — net $10,760.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$933.69	Cleaning
Rubbish removal and section tidy	$850.00	Rubbish removal and section tidy
Repairs: Unblock drains and gully traps	$253.00	Repairs: Unblock drains and gully traps
Replace carpets	$2,130.00	Replace carpets
Replace curtains/blinds	$1,173.27	Replace curtains/blinds
Window repairs	$741.75	Window repairs
Repair holes, plaster, and paint throughout house	$4,251.42	Repair holes, plaster, and paint throughout house
Replace kitchen bench (insurance excess	$400.00	Replace kitchen bench (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,760.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,760.13

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
emma symon must pay [The landlord/s] $10,760.1310,760.13 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This tenancy commenced on 24 September 2022 and was terminated for rent arrears by order of the Tribunal under applications 5114109 and 5141990 on 31 January 2025.
The landlord noted that for most of the tenancy, the premises were reasonably clean and tidy without significant damage. However, in the last 8 months of the tenancy, there was a rapid decline in how the tenant looked after the premises and the landlord issued several breach notices for damage and cleaning that were not remedied before the tenancy ended.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises including exterior grounds reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish and belongings as shown by the photos produced in evidence by the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. In this case, the owner’s insurance excess was $400.
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 tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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.
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.
When the tenancy ended, there was extensive damage to the property. Both human and animal waste (urine and faecal matter) was present throughout the premises which had badly damaged carpets. Some of the waste had been spread on curtains and walls. There were multiple holes, marks and gouges to walls, windowsills, and frames. Many of the window frames were also badly covered and embedded with mould and dirt. This in turn damaged the curtains up against the windowsills and frames. There were broken windows, and the kitchen benchtop was damaged by multiple knife gouges and cuts. Drains and gully traps at the premises were blocked with crushed up pieces of polystyrene, wet wipes and rags.
The costs to unblock the drains of $253 is proved. The damage occurred during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find that the damage was intentional because there was evidence of several items such as wet wipes, rags and pieces of polystyrene forced down the drains during the tenancy and nothing done by the tenant to stop the activity after the drains became blocked. The tenant also failed to report the blockage to the landlord.
The following damage was also caused during the tenancy: carpets damaged by urine and faecal matter in 4 x bedrooms and the living/dining area; missing/damaged blinds in the living areas and damaged curtains in 4 x bedrooms; damaged kitchen benchtop, damaged walls and windowsills and frames in 4 x bedrooms, lounge/living, kitchen, hallway, and toilet which required plastering and painting; broken windows in kitchen/dining, lounge French door and bedroom 3.
The landlord obtained advice that the carpets and curtains could not be cleaned to remove the stains and smell. Replacement was required.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find that the damage was intentional. The tenant could have avoided it by managing the dogs and occupants so that they did not toilet on the carpet in the premises, spread faecal matter on walls and flooring and behave in a manner to cause multiple holes, gouges, marks and damage on surfaces throughout the premises. The occasional accident would not have been intentional and would not have resulted in the carpet and curtains being written off and the extensive plastering and painting work. It is the extent of the damage that makes it intentional in the sense that the tenant failed to take reasonable action to avoid it.
The landlord seeks the total replacement costs for carpets, blinds, curtains, plastering and painting of surfaces and replacement of broken windows. In relation to the kitchen benchtop, the landlord seeks the insurance excess of $400 only. The claims are based on quotes either from third party contractors or the property management company.
I must consider 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 must take into into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord gave evidence that the premises were fully refurbished in 2021 including installation of new carpets, curtains and the premises were freshly painted throughout including walls, windowsills, and frames.
To remedy holes and marks on walls involved the repair work and making good by painting the entire rooms. Paint work attracts depreciation. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that paintwork in a rental property is expected to last 10-12 years. The invoice for the work does not breakdown the repairs from painting but the paint work is likely the bulk of the costs . Therefore, overall I have reduced the costs by 33% to account for depreciation which I consider is reasonable in the circumstances.
The amounts claimed and appropriate reduction for depreciation is summarised in the following table: ItemReplacement cost/claim Estimated lifeReduction for Depreciation Award Carpets$3,550.0010 years4/10 yrs (40%)$2,130.00 Blinds/curtains$2,346.548 years4/8 yrs (50%)$1,173.27 Broken windows $741.75LifetimeNA$741.75 Plaster, paint$6,345.4110-12 years4/12 yrs (33%)$4,251.42 Kitchen benchtop $400LifetimeNA$400.00 Total$8,696.44
The damage found resulted in the owner lodging a large insurance claim after the tenancy ended. The claim was accepted, and the landlord received a significant insurance payment less the applicable excesses. The payment exceeds the tenants liability to pay $8,696.44 as assessed by the Tribunal after taking depreciation into account
However, the tenant is liable for the full amount assessed because it is intentional damage. The RTA has significant restrictions around recovery of money when insurance is involved, but that only applies to careless damage (see s 49B RTA).
The Tribunal considers there is no injustice arising with a landlord receiving a payment from the insurer, and then a payment from the tenant pursuant to a Tribunal order for the same claims. That is because: a. The landlord is obligated to pay the money to the insurer, so this is not a case where the landlord could rightfully double dip. b. It is fair. A tenant should not escape any consequences for causing damage just because the insurer came to the party. If the damage had been careless, then the tenant would have to pay the lesser of the insurance excess or 4 weeks’ rent (see s49B RTA). It could not have been in Parliament's contemplation that the situation would be better for a tenant who intentionally damaged the premises versus a tenant who carelessly damaged the premises; c. There continues to be a right of subrogation and other rights for the insurer because this is intentional damage. The insurer loses their rights to recover careless damage costs (see s49C RTA), but that is not the case for intentional damage.
It is a general principle that insurance payments do not reduce liability for damages 1 . The law of subrogation may require the landlord to account for any recovery to insurers, but the insurance payment does not reduce the tenant’s liability.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with their claim, they are entitled to suppression of their name and identifying details, as requested and reimbursement of the filing fee. K Stirling, 16 May 2025 1 Anderson v James (1908) 28 NZLR 34

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5207311 — net $10,760.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$933.69	Cleaning
Rubbish removal and section tidy	$850.00	Rubbish removal and section tidy
Repairs: Unblock drains and gully traps	$253.00	Repairs: Unblock drains and gully traps
Replace carpets	$2,130.00	Replace carpets
Replace curtains/blinds	$1,173.27	Replace curtains/blinds
Window repairs	$741.75	Window repairs
Repair holes, plaster, and paint throughout house	$4,251.42	Repair holes, plaster, and paint throughout house
Replace kitchen bench (insurance excess	$400.00	Replace kitchen bench (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,760.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,760.13

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
emma symon must pay [The landlord/s] $10,760.1310,760.13 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This tenancy commenced on 24 September 2022 and was terminated for rent arrears by order of the Tribunal under applications 5114109 and 5141990 on 31 January 2025.
The landlord noted that for most of the tenancy, the premises were reasonably clean and tidy without significant damage. However, in the last 8 months of the tenancy, there was a rapid decline in how the tenant looked after the premises and the landlord issued several breach notices for damage and cleaning that were not remedied before the tenancy ended.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises including exterior grounds reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish and belongings as shown by the photos produced in evidence by the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. In this case, the owner’s insurance excess was $400.
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 tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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.
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.
When the tenancy ended, there was extensive damage to the property. Both human and animal waste (urine and faecal matter) was present throughout the premises which had badly damaged carpets. Some of the waste had been spread on curtains and walls. There were multiple holes, marks and gouges to walls, windowsills, and frames. Many of the window frames were also badly covered and embedded with mould and dirt. This in turn damaged the curtains up against the windowsills and frames. There were broken windows, and the kitchen benchtop was damaged by multiple knife gouges and cuts. Drains and gully traps at the premises were blocked with crushed up pieces of polystyrene, wet wipes and rags.
The costs to unblock the drains of $253 is proved. The damage occurred during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find that the damage was intentional because there was evidence of several items such as wet wipes, rags and pieces of polystyrene forced down the drains during the tenancy and nothing done by the tenant to stop the activity after the drains became blocked. The tenant also failed to report the blockage to the landlord.
The following damage was also caused during the tenancy: carpets damaged by urine and faecal matter in 4 x bedrooms and the living/dining area; missing/damaged blinds in the living areas and damaged curtains in 4 x bedrooms; damaged kitchen benchtop, damaged walls and windowsills and frames in 4 x bedrooms, lounge/living, kitchen, hallway, and toilet which required plastering and painting; broken windows in kitchen/dining, lounge French door and bedroom 3.
The landlord obtained advice that the carpets and curtains could not be cleaned to remove the stains and smell. Replacement was required.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find that the damage was intentional. The tenant could have avoided it by managing the dogs and occupants so that they did not toilet on the carpet in the premises, spread faecal matter on walls and flooring and behave in a manner to cause multiple holes, gouges, marks and damage on surfaces throughout the premises. The occasional accident would not have been intentional and would not have resulted in the carpet and curtains being written off and the extensive plastering and painting work. It is the extent of the damage that makes it intentional in the sense that the tenant failed to take reasonable action to avoid it.
The landlord seeks the total replacement costs for carpets, blinds, curtains, plastering and painting of surfaces and replacement of broken windows. In relation to the kitchen benchtop, the landlord seeks the insurance excess of $400 only. The claims are based on quotes either from third party contractors or the property management company.
I must consider 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 must take into into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord gave evidence that the premises were fully refurbished in 2021 including installation of new carpets, curtains and the premises were freshly painted throughout including walls, windowsills, and frames.
To remedy holes and marks on walls involved the repair work and making good by painting the entire rooms. Paint work attracts depreciation. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that paintwork in a rental property is expected to last 10-12 years. The invoice for the work does not breakdown the repairs from painting but the paint work is likely the bulk of the costs . Therefore, overall I have reduced the costs by 33% to account for depreciation which I consider is reasonable in the circumstances.
The amounts claimed and appropriate reduction for depreciation is summarised in the following table: ItemReplacement cost/claim Estimated lifeReduction for Depreciation Award Carpets$3,550.0010 years4/10 yrs (40%)$2,130.00 Blinds/curtains$2,346.548 years4/8 yrs (50%)$1,173.27 Broken windows $741.75LifetimeNA$741.75 Plaster, paint$6,345.4110-12 years4/12 yrs (33%)$4,251.42 Kitchen benchtop $400LifetimeNA$400.00 Total$8,696.44
The damage found resulted in the owner lodging a large insurance claim after the tenancy ended. The claim was accepted, and the landlord received a significant insurance payment less the applicable excesses. The payment exceeds the tenants liability to pay $8,696.44 as assessed by the Tribunal after taking depreciation into account
However, the tenant is liable for the full amount assessed because it is intentional damage. The RTA has significant restrictions around recovery of money when insurance is involved, but that only applies to careless damage (see s 49B RTA).
The Tribunal considers there is no injustice arising with a landlord receiving a payment from the insurer, and then a payment from the tenant pursuant to a Tribunal order for the same claims. That is because: a. The landlord is obligated to pay the money to the insurer, so this is not a case where the landlord could rightfully double dip. b. It is fair. A tenant should not escape any consequences for causing damage just because the insurer came to the party. If the damage had been careless, then the tenant would have to pay the lesser of the insurance excess or 4 weeks’ rent (see s49B RTA). It could not have been in Parliament's contemplation that the situation would be better for a tenant who intentionally damaged the premises versus a tenant who carelessly damaged the premises; c. There continues to be a right of subrogation and other rights for the insurer because this is intentional damage. The insurer loses their rights to recover careless damage costs (see s49C RTA), but that is not the case for intentional damage.
It is a general principle that insurance payments do not reduce liability for damages 1 . The law of subrogation may require the landlord to account for any recovery to insurers, but the insurance payment does not reduce the tenant’s liability.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with their claim, they are entitled to suppression of their name and identifying details, as requested and reimbursement of the filing fee. K Stirling, 16 May 2025 1 Anderson v James (1908) 28 NZLR 34

Tenancy Tribunal case 5207311 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5207311 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions