Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5315997 — Property damage at 9 Hardie Street, Mangere East, Auckland 2024
Decided 16 Feb 2026 · Published 16 Feb 2026 · Application 5315997
- 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 landlord’s name and identifying details.
- Owen Riley, Tuhi Riley and Porter Riley must pay [The landlord/s] $201.82 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Water rates$339.50 Replace furnishings: curtains$1,776.11 Window repairs$600.00 Repairs: mural removal$450.00 Repairs: fire insurance excess$1,000.00 Repairs: heat pump reinstallation$172.50 Repairs: garage wall$1,200.00 Repairs: bathroom wall$300.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Rent credit $64.29 Total award$5,866.11$64.29 Net award$5,801.82 Bond$5,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$201.82
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, 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 4 February 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
- The landlord provided photographic evidence that there were curtains supplied for four bedrooms and the lounge during the tenancy and that they and curtain rods were missing at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant denied removing the curtains. He believes that after the premises were vacated, they were not secure and “plenty of people” were hanging around the property and could gain access.
- She confirmed that the property was secure when visited. She explained that there were several people enabled to visit the property including insurance assessors and contractors. They had access via a secure box and locks on all the external doors. The landlord confirmed that the photographs of the missing curtains were taken at the inspection on the day after the end of the tenancy.
- On the evidence before the Tribunal the landlord it is reasonable to conclude that the curtains went missing during the tenancy. On the balance of probabilities, the landlord has proved its loss and that compensation is payable.
- Because the curtains were a year old, it is necessary to deduct depreciation. The Inland Revenue’s depreciation guide shows that drapes have a life expectancy of eight years. The amount claimed by the landlord has therefore been reduced by 1/8 th so that the landlord is in no better position than if the curtains had remained at the premises.
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 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: a. There were two broken panels in the glass door to the garage. b. There was a large mural painted onto a wall in the master bedroom. c. The premises were extensively by a fire caused carelessly by the tenant. d. A heat pump unit was hanging from the wall and required re-installation. e. There was a large area of damage to an exterior wall of the garage. f. There was damage to a wall in the bathroom.
- The tenant claimed that: a. The damage to the garage door was caused by a falling branch and the landlord was notified. b. The landlord consented to his daughter painting the mural. c. He had no knowledge of damage to the heat pump, the garage wall and the bathroom wall. d. The damage could have been caused by unknown people after the end of the tenancy or during the period when the tenant was not living there after the fire and before the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord gave further evidence that: a. There was no record in its log of damage having been caused to the garage door, the garage wall or bedroom wall. While the landlord’s property manager checked her cell phone - which was new – for messages, it was her firm’s internal record keeping for this property that she also checked and which disclosed no notifications by the tenant in relation to this damage. b. The owner did not give consent to the painting of the mural and had instructed the property manager at the hearing to claim for its repair. c. The photographs supplied in evidence to the hearing were of the state of the property prior to its end and on the final inspection, the day after its end. d. The property was secure and no person going to the property reported any further damage.
- Having considered the evidence of both parties the Tribunal concludes: a. In the absence of any record that the tenant notified the landlord of the damage to the garage door, it is more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy and was careless. b. In the absence of any consent in writing from the owner to the painting of the mural, it is more likely than not that the landlord did not consent to its painting. This damage was intentional damage. c. The photographic evidence of the damage to the garage and bathroom walls and the heat pump was taken the day after the end of the tenancy. There is no evidence that the tenant reported it to the landlord. It is careless damage caused during the tenancy and is not fair wear and tear.
- 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. There is no element of betterment in the work undertaken by the landlord and so need to reduce the sums awarded.
- The landlord holds a rent credit in relation to the tenancy. It is appropriate that this sum be applied to the amount outstanding from the tenant to the landlord.
- The landlord gave evidence that it retained a rent credit for a member of the tenant’s family that related to a separate tenancy. The tenant did not consent at the hearing to it being applied to the amount owing by the tenant. The sum held should be credited to her without delay. Suppression and filing fee
- Because the landlord has been wholly successful in its application, it is appropriate that its name be suppressed as requested.
- Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.