Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5303439 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 11, 38 Division Street, Riccarton, Christchurch
Decided 24 Sept 2025 · Published 24 Sept 2025 · Application 5303439
- Property damage
Order
- [The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $1,032.79 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $316.00 (5015155-005) to Otautahi Community Housing Trust immediately.
Reasons
- Mr Waters, representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 673, was called twice, without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord said the tenancy ended on 10 March 2025.
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. Rubbish removal
- The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photographs of the rubbish left outside the property by the tenant at the end of the tenancy, which included overflowing rubbish bins and an overflowing rubbish skip with rubbish bags, boxes, broken fan and other rubbish items. The landlord said that 2.5 cubic metres of rubbish was removed and disposed of from the outside of the property. The landlord provided an invoice confirming the cost of removing and disposing of this rubbish was $382.12, which I accept is a reasonable cost, given the evidence. Therefore, I award the landlord $382.12 for rubbish removal. Lock replacement
- The landlord said the tenant did not return the keys. The landlord provided an invoice showing the locks were replaced at a much higher cost than that claimed for this, which was $172.50. I find the landlord’s cost claimed to be reasonable in the circumstances and award the landlord $172.50 to replace the locks.
- 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 landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: New exterior door a. The exterior door to the property was smashed and broken by the tenant. The landlord provided photographs of the exterior door with the main part of it being boarded up, showing it was heavily damaged by the tenant, as it had apparently been a solid wooden door. b. Given the evidence provided, I find this damage to be intentional on the part of the tenant. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here. c. The landlord claimed $870.26 to replace and install the heavy solid wooden new door, claimed $230.00 to supply a new latch set, strike plate and handles for this door and claimed $235.04 to paint the new exterior door. The three claims for replacement of this door, providing new latch set, strike plate and handles and painting it come to a total of $1,335.30. The landlord provided photographs of the broken door, photographs of the new exterior door and invoices explaining the costs claimed for the new door. This total cost was discussed with the landlord, who explained that the exterior doors in their facilities are heavy, secure, solid wooden doors, which may be heavier than usual doors, and that security is key for their tenants and so appropriate latch sets and door security items are required. Given the evidence and in the circumstances, I consider the cost claimed of $1,335.30 to replace the heavy exterior door, provide a new latch set, strike plate and handles and paint the new exterior door reasonable, prior to consideration for depreciation. d. In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred. e. Whilst there was no direct evidence discussed as to the age of the exterior door during the hearing, from the photographs of the broken door provided by the landlord, it appears the old exterior door would have been at least 10 years old. f. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of an exterior door in a rental property is around 30 years. As such, I deduct the $1,335.30 cost by 33% for depreciation to an award of $894.66 to replace and install the new exterior door, provide latch sets, strike plate, handles and paint the new exterior door. Hole in lounge wall g. The landlord also said the tenant caused a large hole in the lounge wall and provided a photograph of this hole. h. Given the evidence provided, I find this damage to be intentional on the part of the tenant. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here. i. The landlord provided an invoice to show the cost of plastering/patching the hole was $84.94, which did not include any painting. Given the evidence, I find this cost claimed reasonable and so award the landlord $84.94 to plaster and patch the hole in the lounge wall at the end of the tenancy. As the patched hole was not painted by the landlord, depreciation does not apply here.
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved. Refund of bond and Tenant’s rent credit
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $316.00 (5015155-005) to Otautahi Community Housing Trust immediately.
- The landlord said they hold a rent credit for the tenant in the amount of $213.43, which they asked to apply to any order made against the tenant. This credit of the tenant is applied as such in this order. Filing fee
- Because Otautahi Community Housing Trust has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.