Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5315307 — Property damage
Decided 5 Dec 2025 · Published 5 Dec 2025 · Application 5315307
- Property damage
- State of repair
- Rent arrears
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 Landlord’s name and identifying details.
- Manaia Putiputi Taiapa must pay [The landlord] $14,415.76 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
- I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for rent and water rates?
- The tenancy ended on 2 February 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices 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 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 has produced evidence that the house was in excellent condition at the start of the tenancy and that the tenant caused the following damage during the tenancy: a. Water pump burnt out after the drains got blocked from the tenant, and/or persons in the house with her consent, put items such as nappies and wet wipes down the toilet when it is it not designed for such use; b. The carpets throughout the house are all stained when they were new at the beginning of the tenancy. The stains could not be removed with commercial cleaning and had to be replaced under insurance; c. Entrance tiles broken; d. Garage walls and doorframe damaged; and e. Garage flyscreen damaged.
- All of the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of filing fee
- Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
- Because [The applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
- The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
- The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- Non-publication is ordered.