What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5235571 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 5235571?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,382.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5235571?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5235571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11869309-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5235571 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 5235571?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,382.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5235571?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5235571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11869309-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5235571 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5235571 — net $6,689.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,382.14		Rent arrears
Insurance excess for carpet replacement, plastering and	$6,000.00		Insurance excess for carpet replacement, plastering and
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond refund received		$2,720.00	Bond refund received
Total award	$9,409.14	$2,720.00
Net award	$6,689.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,689.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Dayna Hooker must pay [The landlord/s] $6,689.14 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 rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has already received refund of the bond which I have taken into account.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 2 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 insurance excess in this case is $1,000.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: The carpet was stained and damaged by urine to the extent that it could b not be cleaned and had to be replaced in the living/dining area, the hallway, the lounge and in the three bedrooms. In addition there were multiple holes marks and gouges in walls throughout the tenancy that had to repaired plastered and painted.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage, which I find was intentional. The tenant could have avoided it by managing the occupants’ behaviour. The occasional accident would not have been intentional and would not have resulted in the carpet 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 damage resulted in the owner lodging a large insurance claim after the tenancy ended. The claim was accepted, and the landlord received an insurance payment for carpet replacement, plastering and paint work less an excess applied of $1,000 for each of the six rooms damaged. One excess was applied per room regardless of the amount of damage caused in each room. The landlord seeks recovery of the total excesses of $6,000.
Before awarding the insurance excesses, I must consider the actual costs incurred by the landlord and any reduction that should be applied for betterment and depreciation to ensure that the amount they are entitled to does not exceed the excesses they have claimed. 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 consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord advised that the carpets were 5 years old at the end of the tenancy. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that carpets should last 10-14 years in a rental property depending on whether they are in bedrooms or living areas, with living areas generally resulting in more wear and tear. In this case, I consider that the carpets ought to last 12 years. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the carpet replacement cost by 42% (5/12years) for depreciation. The landlord received a quote for “like for like” carpets of $11,869.21. However, they decided to install a lower quality, cheaper carpet to save costs. This carpet cost $3,900. I consider this amount takes depreciation into account.
The landlord advised that the walls throughout the property were last painted 2 years before the tenancy ended. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that painted surfaces should last 10 years in a rental property. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the painting costs by 20% (2/10 years) for depreciation. However, while painting costs should be depreciated, the work required to repair holes should not be subject to depreciation. The landlord provided evidence that they spent over $5,600 on painting and repairs, including labour and materials. The repair costs versus painting costs were not itemised. If the costs were depreciated by 20%, this would result in an award to the landlords of $4,480. However, it is likely that the landlord would be entitled to more because a portion of the costs relate to repairs which should not be depreciated
In any event, the total of the depreciated costs set out above is $8,380 which exceeds the insurance excesses. Therefore, I am satisfied that it is fair and reasonable to award the insurance excesses of $6,000 to the landlord.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with their claim, they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details as requested. They are also entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee. K Stirling, 20 May 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5235571 — net $6,689.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,382.14		Rent arrears
Insurance excess for carpet replacement, plastering and	$6,000.00		Insurance excess for carpet replacement, plastering and
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond refund received		$2,720.00	Bond refund received
Total award	$9,409.14	$2,720.00
Net award	$6,689.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,689.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Dayna Hooker must pay [The landlord/s] $6,689.14 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 rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has already received refund of the bond which I have taken into account.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 2 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 insurance excess in this case is $1,000.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: The carpet was stained and damaged by urine to the extent that it could b not be cleaned and had to be replaced in the living/dining area, the hallway, the lounge and in the three bedrooms. In addition there were multiple holes marks and gouges in walls throughout the tenancy that had to repaired plastered and painted.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage, which I find was intentional. The tenant could have avoided it by managing the occupants’ behaviour. The occasional accident would not have been intentional and would not have resulted in the carpet 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 damage resulted in the owner lodging a large insurance claim after the tenancy ended. The claim was accepted, and the landlord received an insurance payment for carpet replacement, plastering and paint work less an excess applied of $1,000 for each of the six rooms damaged. One excess was applied per room regardless of the amount of damage caused in each room. The landlord seeks recovery of the total excesses of $6,000.
Before awarding the insurance excesses, I must consider the actual costs incurred by the landlord and any reduction that should be applied for betterment and depreciation to ensure that the amount they are entitled to does not exceed the excesses they have claimed. 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 consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord advised that the carpets were 5 years old at the end of the tenancy. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that carpets should last 10-14 years in a rental property depending on whether they are in bedrooms or living areas, with living areas generally resulting in more wear and tear. In this case, I consider that the carpets ought to last 12 years. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the carpet replacement cost by 42% (5/12years) for depreciation. The landlord received a quote for “like for like” carpets of $11,869.21. However, they decided to install a lower quality, cheaper carpet to save costs. This carpet cost $3,900. I consider this amount takes depreciation into account.
The landlord advised that the walls throughout the property were last painted 2 years before the tenancy ended. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that painted surfaces should last 10 years in a rental property. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the painting costs by 20% (2/10 years) for depreciation. However, while painting costs should be depreciated, the work required to repair holes should not be subject to depreciation. The landlord provided evidence that they spent over $5,600 on painting and repairs, including labour and materials. The repair costs versus painting costs were not itemised. If the costs were depreciated by 20%, this would result in an award to the landlords of $4,480. However, it is likely that the landlord would be entitled to more because a portion of the costs relate to repairs which should not be depreciated
In any event, the total of the depreciated costs set out above is $8,380 which exceeds the insurance excesses. Therefore, I am satisfied that it is fair and reasonable to award the insurance excesses of $6,000 to the landlord.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with their claim, they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details as requested. They are also entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee. K Stirling, 20 May 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5235571 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5235571 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions