Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5312725 — Property damage
Decided 23 Jan 2026 · Published 23 Jan 2026 · Application 5312725
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
This is an amended Order to reflect the correct amount request by the Landlord from the balance of the bond held at the Bond Centre.
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
- Megan Dunn, Arran Dunn, Gary Reid, Gabryel Dunn and Troy Dunn to pay [The landlord/s] $28.00.
- Megan Dunn, Arran Dunn, Gary Reid, Gabryel Dunn and Troy Dunn to pay the Landlords $1483.82 from the bond.
- The Bond Centre to pay the Landlord $1438.32 immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Amendment
- The Bond paid to the Bond Centre was $3900.00. At the hearing the Landlord submitted that some of the Bond had been refunded previously to the parties by agreement so the Landlord was seeking the balance of the bond held at the Bond Centre being $1438.32. The Landlord stated that the parties previously agreed that $1405.44 had been refunded to the Landlord and $1056.24 to the Tenant. The Landlord submitted the Bond Centre has only refunded $60.08 since the Order on 11 December 2025 was made however the correct amount to be refunded to the Landlord is $1438.32 in total, of the balance of the Bond.
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 landlord submitted the Tenant did not leave the carpet in a clean and tidy condition and that there was a significant flea infestation at the end of the tenancy. The Tenant was permitted to keep one cat at the premises, and the Tenancy Agreement expressly required the Tenant to steam clean, deodorise, and flea-treat the carpets upon vacating. The Landlord produced email evidence from the carpet cleaners confirming that, upon attending the property, they were unable to commence cleaning due to the severity of the infestation. The cleaners reported that fleas were present immediately upon entry and that multiple treatments were required before the carpets could be cleaned. This resulted in higher-than-usual treatment costs. An invoice from the carpet cleaner and email correspondence between the parties was provided in support.
- The Tenant disputed the existence of a flea infestation stating that no flea issues had arisen at their new residence. The Tenant also noted that the Landlord had not produced photographic evidence of fleas at the property.
- Having considered all the evidence, I am satisfied that a substantial flea infestation was present. The invoice and email from the carpet cleaners are persuasive and credible in establishing this fact. Photographic evidence of individual fleas is not required, as capturing such images would be impractical due to their movement. I find that, given the Tenant kept a cat at the premises, they were responsible for ensuring the carpets were properly cleaned, deodorised, and treated for fleas upon vacating, and they failed to meet that obligation.
- 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: Refrigerator door damage. The Landlord submitted the Tenant caused dents to the refrigerator door during the tenancy and it was brand new at the start of the tenancy. A video and photographs were provided of the dents. An invoice was provided for the repair of the doors.
- The Tenant did not dispute the presence of dents but did not agree with paying for the repairs.
- In considering the evidence, I find from the photographs of the damage that the dents were 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.
- As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee and name suppression is granted to the Landlord.