Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5322059 — Property damage
Decided 7 Jan 2026 · Published 7 Jan 2026 · Application 5322059
- 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 name and identifying details.
- Doris Sina Lemalu and Jaycinta-moe Faauli must pay [The landlord/s] $5,146.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Water rates$312.13 Repairs: to oven door$391.00 Repairs: to doors$1,207.50 Repairs: to walls$1,207.60 Carpet replacement excess x4 rooms$2,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$5,146.23 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,146.23
Reasons
- Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing which took place by videoconference. The tenants did not join the conference and when their telephone numbers were called there was no response.
- The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenancy ended on 30 June 2025.
How much is owed for water rates?
- The tenancy ended on 30 June 2025. The application was filed on 8 August 2025 and sought the amount of $312.13. The property manager provided water rates invoices and advised that the amount outstanding was actually greater than $312.13 but accepted the amount as applied for
Are the tenants 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.
- The following damage was caused during the tenancy: (a)Oven door – the landlord advised that the oven door hinges were damaged and required replacement at the end of the tenancy. Entry and exit inspection photographs and an invoice for the repair were provided. The premises were new at the commencement of this tenancy. I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is less than the insurance excess. (b)Doors – the landlord claimed that there was damage to three doors during the tenancy including one door that had been replaced by the tenants but was the wrong size door. Entry and exit inspection photographs were provided together with an invoice for the repair. I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered is less than the insurance excesses for three separate door damage events. (c)Walls – the landlord claimed that there was damage to the walls and paintwork throughout the premises. The application stated that the sum of $1207.60 was sought for the repairs. Entry and exit inspection photographs were provided together with an invoice for the repair dated 14 July 2025 in the sum of $2051.60. The landlord sought reimbursement of the $2051.60 at the hearing. Having considered the evidence I find that some of the damage to the paintwork was fair wear and tear as there were scuff marks as a result of the premises being lived in for 18 months. However, there were also areas where there were knocks to the wall and small holes together with larger damage areas in the hallway, bedroom 2 and bedroom 3 and I find this damage to be beyond fair wear and tear. The landlords have had the entire house repainted and I find that this goes beyond retuning them to the position they would have been in at the end of this tenancy had the tenants not breached their obligations. Therefore, I order partial payment of the repair costs in the sum of $1207.60 as recorded in the application. (d)Carpet – the landlord claimed that there was damage to the carpet throughout the premises and sought reimbursement of the insurance excess of $500 for four rooms being two bedrooms and the lounge and hallway. In support of the claim the landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs. The carpet was new at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord also provided the carpet replacement invoice which is greater than the insurance excesses sought. The exit photographs show extensive staining to the carpet throughout the premises. The landlord advised that the carpets were cleaned at the owner’s expense but the stains did not remove so replacement was required. I find that there was damage to the carpet during the tenancy beyond fair wear and tear and order the amount sought. Filing fee/suppression
- Because the landlord has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and suppress the landlord details in the order as applied for. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.