Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5233353 — Property damage at 25A Upland Road, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015
Decided 5 Jun 2025 · Published 5 Jun 2025 · Application 5233353
Mixed / unclear
- Property damage
Order
- Kim Saunders, Sarriah Tash Rerehau and Kendyll Rerehau to pay Inspire Real Estate Limited As Agent For Yurong Xu Family Trust $4,777.12 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionAmount Carpets - Insurance excess x21,400.00 Carpet cleaning (unsuccessful)280.00 Full house clean550.00 Grounds clean-up240.00 Rubbish removal and dump fees256.00 Leak repairs (vanity and laundry tub)143.75 Vanity reinstatement & door handle repairs428.37 Hole in wall repair80.00 Lock and key replacement293.00 Drapes, rails, hooks & labour359.00 Lost rent (1 week)$720.00 Application filing fee$27.00 Total$4,777.12
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The premises were brand new at the start of the tenancy. I have viewed the photographs provided by the Property Manager at the beginning and end of the hearing. The was left in a poor and unsanitary state. There was extensive staining and odour throughout the carpet, confirmed by the professional cleaner to be among the worst they had encountered (animal and human faeces). A full professional clean was required but could not be completed by the first company, due to the overpowering smell – they refused to allow their cleaners into the premises to clean, citing safety concerns. The tenant also failed to clean the grounds, which were described as severely overgrown.
- Rubbish and debris were left behind, requiring removal and dump fees.
- The tenant failed to return keys for three locks, requiring rekeying and replacement.
- The amounts claimed for cleaning, grounds maintenance, rubbish removal, and lock replacement are supported by invoices and the property managers oral evidence. The following claims and amounts are proved. a. Carpet cleaning (unsuccessful): $280.00 b. Full house clean: $550.00 c. Grounds clean up: $240.00 d. Rubbish removal: $256.00 e. Locks and keys: $293.00
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.
- 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.
- Most of the damage in this case was extensive and consistent with careless or intentional conduct, as seen in the photos, which have been further described by the property manager. This includes: a. Damage to the vanity and laundry tub, which were pulled away from the wall – requiring immense weight or force – causing a leak behind the laundry tub and bending pipes from inside the wall. b. Damage to multiple door handles, consistent with forceful use. c. A hole in the bedroom wall. d. Missing or damaged drapes and rails. e. Carpet damage caused by pets and an incontinent occupant, well beyond reasonable wear.
- As for the carpet, which required full replacement in two rooms, the landlord’s insurance policy applied, but the $700 excess was payable twice. The tenant’s liability is limited to the excess per careless incident. Two separate incidents of careless damage have been established based on the nature and timing of the damage.
- I have awarded a week of lost rent to the Landlord for the time the home was being restored. I accept the property managers advice that she turns around properties very quickly. However, I consider the weekly rent is considerable, and
- The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage events which are more than fair wear and tear.
- I accept that the following compensation amounts are reasonable and proved: a. Carpet replacement (2 rooms) Insurance excess x2: $1,400.00 b. Leak and pipe repairs (vanity/laundry): $143.75 c. Vanity reinstatement and door handle repairs: $428.37 d. Hole in wall repair: $80.00 e. Replacement of drapes/rails/hooks: $359.00
- 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 items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The house was brand new prior to the commencement of the tenancy.
- Because Inspire Real Estate Limited As Agent For Yurong Xu Family Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.