Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5235851 — Property damage
Decided 25 Aug 2025 · Published 25 Aug 2025 · Application 5235851
- 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 tenant’s name and identifying details.
- Tenant must pay landlord $503.33 immediately,
Reasons
- The tenancy commenced on 10 July 2022 and ended on 17 February 2025 after the tenant gave notice. On 14 April 2025, the landlord filed a claim for damage. On 01 August 2025, the matter was scheduled for hearing on 25 August 2025. [Property manager] has appeared for the landlord. The tenant has left the area. An unsuccessful attempt was made to call the tenant on the number provided in the application, and the matter has proceeded in their absence.
- The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the following: i. Garage louvre and bathroom window ($340.00), ii. Screen door and wallpaper in hallway ($300.00), iii. Bathroom and kitchen ceilings ($2,800.00), iv. Vinyl floor in laundry ($897.00)
- The landlord also claims the tenant is responsible for missing light bulbs ($19.20) and curtain hooks ($30.00).
- In brackets next to each claim is the compensation sought.
- The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Law
- Under section 40(1) of the tenant must leave all chattels provided for their benefit
- To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
- Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
- 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) of the Act.
- 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) of the Act.
- 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.
- In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
- Awarding compensation for damage, and missing chattels, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. In calculating betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Missing light bulbs and curtains hooks
- The landlord has produced invoices for missing light bulbs and curtain hooks. Apart from the invoices, no other evidence has been produced. There is no evidence on which to make an objective assessment. This is insufficient, and the claim is dismissed. Wallpaper and screen door.
- The landlord has produced photographs showing a section of wallpaper in the hallway, and the screen door at the front entrance which is damaged.
- The landlord has also produced a pre tenancy checklist and photographs of the screen and the wallpaper at the commencement of the tenancy showing them to be undamaged.
- In both cases, I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy. The wallpaper tear is large. The screen door has been significantly damaged. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
- The amount claimed in the invoice is to repair both the wallpaper and the door. There has been no betterment and I award the amount claimed. Garage and bathroom windows.
- The landlord has produced photographs showing a missing louvre window in the garage, and a cracked window in the bathroom. The landlord has also produced a pre tenancy checklist and photographs of the windows at the commencement of the tenancy.
- I am satisfied that the louvre window is missing and that this damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, and no explanation has been provided by the tenant.
- While I am satisfied that the bathroom window damage has occurred during the tenancy I am not satisfied that it is necessarily more than fair wear and tear. The bathroom window is an opening aluminium window. [ Property manager] stated that another property manager told her that the window is about two years old. Based on an objective assessment, I question the accuracy of that statement. The house was built in the 1960s, and although the window is not original, it appears to have been added in the 1990s making it over 30 years old.
- This type of damage to windows may be caused by careless or intentional acts, but it may equally have been an accidental, and therefore consistent with fair wear and tear. The invoice produced is not itemised. The bathroom window appears to be at least two thirds larger than the louvre window. On that basis, I apportion one third of the invoice and award the landlord $113.33. Vinyl flooring
- The landlord has produced a photograph of a property manager lifting a mat left by the tenant in the laundry. Under the matter the landlord discovered damage to the vinyl flooring, likely caused by moisture. The pre tenancy checklist and photographs showing the floor at the commencement of the tenancy do not show damage.
- I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. Leaving the mat suggests that the damage has been the result of carelessness by the tenant.
- The landlord states they have insurance for damage but are unable to tell me the excess. Vinyl flooring in rental properties typically has a useful lifespan of around 10 years. [ Property manager] estimated the flooring was 4 – 5 years old. As with the bathroom window, I question the accuracy of that assessment. Although in a reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy, based on its appearance, I consider it to be older than [ Property manager] estimate. In this case I reduce the amount claimed by 80% for betterment and award the landlord $180.00. Bathroom and kitchen ceiling
- The landlord claims that the ceilings in the bathroom and kitchen were damaged during the tenancy due to mould and peeling paint. The landlord formed the view that the tenant was responsible for the damage because they had failed to properly ventilate these areas. The landlord stated the tenant accepted responsibility and offered to conduct repairs themselves. The landlord has produced a text exchange showing some dispute about the quality of the workmanship and the type of paint used. [ Property manager] states the owner is a professional painter and was of the view that the type of paint used was unsuitable for the areas.
- The landlord has produced photographs of the bathroom ceiling and a section of architrave in the kitchen. The landlord has produced a quote to paint the ceiling in the kitchen for $600.00, and $2,200.00 to re gib and then repaint the bathroom ceiling and walls. The owner completed the work themselves. [ Property manager] is unable to tell me why the ceiling required re gibing.
- In order to find the tenant liable, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. In this case I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable.
- The text exchange does not establish that the tenant was in fact liable. While there is no damage recorded in the pre tenancy checklist, there are however no photographs showing the condition of the ceiling in either room at the commencement of the tenancy. Significantly there is no evidence of the condition of the ceilings at the time the tenant is said to have accepted responsibility. The photographs are limited; in the kitchen to the one area of architrave; and in the bathroom the ceiling does not appear to show damage beyond fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed.
- [ Property manager] stated that at the end of the tenancy the tenant agreed that the bond could be released to cover rent arrears. A rent summary has been produced. The landlord has $90.00 of the tenant’s money in their account. The total award accounts for this money already held. Costs
- Where a party has been wholly successful, the Tribunal must order reimbursement of the filing fee. Where a party has only been partly successful, the Tribunal has discretion to order reimbursement of the fee. I am not satisfied there are grounds to order reimbursement. Name suppression.
- The landlord seeks suppression.
- Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
- Assessed globally, I consider that both parties have been substantially successful, and both are entitled to name suppression.