Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5273182 — Property damage at 46 Alma Street, Wyndham, Wyndham 9831
Decided 8 Sept 2025 · Published 8 Sept 2025 · Application 5273182
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Order
- Tania Black must pay Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For Ganesh & Pritika Harduar $12,051.16 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- The Bond Centre is to pay $354.79 from the bond of $354.79 (3393466-013) to Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For Ganesh & Pritika Harduar immediately.
Reasons
- This matter first came before the tribunal and an interim order was made for the termination of the tenancy , and payment from the bond for rent arrears and the cost to change the locks. The tenant failed to make herself available for the first hearing.
- The case was adjourned to come back before me for an in person hearing in relation to the significant amount of costs being sought. The tenant failed to make herself available for today’s hearing.
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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The photos show that th significant amount of belongings and rubbish were left at the end of the tenancy and a major clean up was necessary.
- 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 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.
- The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
- The testing for methamphetamine showed contamination. The landlord’s insurance covered for a significant amount of the costs yet some costs were not covered.
- The tenant had removed the carpet and vinyl flooring in the kitchen and dining area, and this needed to be repaired. Further there was a broken window in one of the doors. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- 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.
- Because Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For Ganesh & Pritika Harduar has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.