Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5219193 — Property damage at 79 Morvern Crescent, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420
Decided 10 Jul 2025 · Published 10 Jul 2025 · Application 5219193
Mixed / unclear
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Order
- Alesha Te Hiko and Albert Te Hiko to pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Sage Shin, $5,476.14 immediately, calculated as follows: Award DescriptionAmount Cleaning – full interior$600.00 Oven cleaning$55.00 Carpet cleaning$220.00 Cleaning products$45.00 Rubbish removal (truck hire, tip fees)$390.54 Lock replacement – front and laundry doors$213.90 Wall repairs (holes, plastering, painting)$754.40 Door repairs and replacements$1,513.40 Oven handle replacement$109.25 Wardrobe drawer repair$63.25 Shed window repair$175.95 Rotten floor repair – Bedroom 4$304.75 Damaged blind – Bedroom 1 (replaced with curtain)$143.75 Rear deck damage (painted poorly, left unfinished)$164.45 Rear door, lock and jamb replacement$570.40 Van use and debris removal (reasonable apportionment)$115.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total$5,476.14
Reasons
- The Landlord attended the hearing.
- The Landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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: s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The Tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The Landlord had to engage a professional cleaner to clean the full interior of the 4-bedroom home, including removal of handprints, food residue, and other dirt from walls ($600.00), and to clean the oven ($55.00). The carpets also had to be professionally cleaned ($220.00). Cleaning products were purchased for this purpose ($45.00). These costs are reasonable, having regard to the Landlord’s claimed loss and supporting photographs and inspection reports completed by the property managers.
- Similarly, a significant amount of rubbish was left behind and I award $390.54 which were the Landlord’s costs, including tip fees and truck hire, in removing the rubbish
- The Tenant did not return the keys. The Landlord had to replace the locks on the front and laundry doors. The total cost for lock replacement and associated labour was $213.90 (including GST). 1
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise. 1 I have included GST, calculated manually from the invoice narration, “To replace locks on front door and laundry door. Materials 1.00 x 96.00 = 96.00,” and “Labour to replace locks 1.00 x 90.00 = 90.00.” This claim was not part of the original application and has been added later by the Landlord. The Landlord has not specified the amount claimed. It is the Landlord’s responsibility to clearly state the details and quantum of each claim, including any GST, on a per event (breach) basis.
- 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.
- 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.
- I have viewed the Landlord’s photographs taken before and after the tenancy.
- The following damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear: a. Multiple holes in internal walls. The exit condition report identifies holes and poor patch work in several internal walls of the property, notably in Bedroom 2, where the walls have holes and visible damage (5 photos, page 32). Similar issues are noted in the hallway, with marks, stickers, and poor patching (11 photos, page 23), and in Bedroom 3, where scuff marks and inadequate repairs are evident, and the walls require cleaning (12 photos, page 35). I award $754.40 as claimed for the wall repairs, plastering and painting. This damage was deliberate. b. Damaged doors. The report records multiple instances of door damage throughout the property. In the hallway, the Bedroom 2 door is noted as needing replacement, Bedroom 3 door is missing and requires replacement, and Bedroom 4 door needs painting (10 photos, page 22). Bedroom 2’s door is described as in need of replacement (5 photos, page 32), while Bedroom 3 has no door at all, requiring full replacement (1 photo, page 35). In Bedroom 4, both sides of the door show scuff and paint marks (1 photo, page 38), and in the toilet, the door is scraping along the floor (2 photos, page 44). The rear entrance door required replacement, including locs and door jamb. The total cost of these repairs came to $1,513.40, which include materials, labour and incidental costs such as van use and removal of waste, and GST. The door damage was part of a general pattern of recklessness. c. Damage to the oven handle. The report notes that the oven handle is missing and in need of replacement (5 photos, page 19). I award $109.25 for this damage, which stems from careless use. d. Damaged wardrobe door. In Bedroom 2, the wardrobe is recorded as needing repair due to a damaged drawer. I award $63.25 for this careless damage. e. Broken shed window. The general outside section of the report, and photographs, confirm that the shed window is broken, with the glass panel shattered and rubber left behind by tenants (19 photos, page 71). I award $175.95 for the broken shed window, noting it was damaged during the tenancy. I put significant weight on the pre-tenancy photographs of the shed window frames and as to the general condition of the premises. f. Rotten floor in Bedroom 4 (concealed by the Tenant). In Bedroom 4, the exit report records that the carpet has been lifted for half the room and is in poor condition, revealing evidence of water damage and a rotten section of floor approximately 40cm wide and 200cm long (15 photos, page 40). This damage appears to have been concealed by the Tenant during the tenancy, as a mattress was covering this area during a routine inspection. Had the Tenant let the Landlord know of the leak, it could have been repaired before it soaked and caused the floor to rot. I award $304.75, the cost of having a builder repair the floor damage and refit the carpet in bedroom 4. g. Damaged blind in Bedroom 1 (replaced with curtain and track). The report notes that the blind in Bedroom 1 is damaged, with the agent stating it is “not working properly” and recommending replacement. I accept the Landlord’s evidence and award $143.75, the cost of replacing the blind with a cheaper, and inferior, curtain. I decline to make any award for the installation of a curtain track, as I cannot see that there was one prior to the commencement of the tenancy. h. Damage to the rear deck. The Tenant painted the rear deck (described as a new addition at the start of the tenancy) and part of house to an unacceptable standard, then left it unfinished. I award $164.45 for the repair of the deck. i. Damage to the rear door and lock. The exit report records damage to the rear door and lock, noting that the door is not secure, and the lock appears to have been removed. The agent comments that a new lock is required. I award $570.40 for the replacement of the rear door, lock and jamb.
- I award an additional $115.00 (including GST) for van use and removal of debris associated with the works above – which represent the claims made on an aggregate basis. I would have awarded nothing for these, as they are not allocated on a per event basis, but I consider this to be a reasonable amount having regard to all of the work undertaken by the same supplier.
- The above claims are proved on the balance of probabilities. The damage is more than fair wear and tear in all cases, and the Tenant has failed to attend the hearing and disprove liability for the Landlord’s losses.
- I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
- Because the Landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00.
- For future reference, the Landlord is reminded that compensation claims before the Tribunal must be presented in a format consistent with the statutory framework. This means claims must be grouped and summarised under either (1) whether the tenant complied with their obligations at the end of the tenancy (section 40(1)(e)-(v) and related duties), or (2) whether the tenant is responsible for damage to the premises (sections 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B of the Act).
- Each claim should identify the issue, the work done to address it, and the total amount claimed per event, inclusive of labour, materials, and GST. The Tribunal will not assess claims presented solely as itemised invoice lines, or grouped claims which relate to multiple events.
- Supporting documentation such as invoices, photographs and inspection reports may still be provided to substantiate each grouped claim, but the Landlord cannot rely on the Tribunal to review the invoices and calculate the Landlord’s claims.