What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5326323 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Obi Investments Limited $3,837.59

How much money was awarded in case 5326323?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $24.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $680.76 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $827.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $246.62 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $240.35 awarded to landlord; Replace Sink Plugs: $18.33 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,572.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5326323?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5326323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12640955-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5326323 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Obi Investments Limited $3,837.59

How much money was awarded in case 5326323?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $24.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $680.76 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $827.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $246.62 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $240.35 awarded to landlord; Replace Sink Plugs: $18.33 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,572.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5326323?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5326323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12640955-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3A Fisher Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5326323 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5326323 — net $3,837.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs – front door	$680.76	Repairs – front door
Repairs – holes in bedroom wall	$827.30	Repairs – holes in bedroom wall
Lock/key replacement	$246.62	Lock/key replacement
Replace sink plugs	$18.33	Replace sink plugs
Replace missing light bulbs	$24.95	Replace missing light bulbs
Rubbish removal	$1,572.28	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$199.00	Lawns and Garden work
Replace furnishings: carpet	$240.35	Replace furnishings: carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,837.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,837.59

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Obi Investments Limited $3,837.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Ms Fong-Anae, representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 775, was called several times without any response. The tenant had not provided any other phone number before the hearing and the landlord confirmed the phone number provided was the last phone number they had for the tenant. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence. After the hearing finished, I received an email from the Registry forwarding an email from the tenant asking what was happening with the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 2 July 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. 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 said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided exit photographs taken on 6 July 2025, some routine inspection photographs taken during the tenancy on 14 January 2025 and on 27 May 2025 and an Entry Inspection Report with photographs. They also provided invoices and receipts. Cleaning
The landlord claimed $366.38 for cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
Most of the exit photographs provided by the landlord were of the outside of the property. The few photographs of the interior of the property at the end of the tenancy did not show the requirement for cleaning the interior of the property at the end of the tenancy. Other photographs provided by the landlord during the hearing were of the property after all the cleaning and other work had been completed, so were not adequate to assess the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy before any cleaning work was completed. As such, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove the cleaning claim and must dismiss this claim. Rubbish removal
The landlord claimed $1,572.28 for rubbish removal. This included having to hire both a 9-metre rubbish skip as well as a 12-metre rubbish skip, rubbish tip fees of $242.28, labour to remove the rubbish and dispose of it at the tip of $200.00 and $100.00 fee to dispose separately of a fridge left at the property. The landlord provided receipts or invoices for all the charges claimed for rubbish removal.
The exit photographs provided showed a huge amount of rubbish left by the tenant, including household refuse, dog toys and faeces, broken furniture, mattresses, wood, rocks, bedding, and old bath, 2 large drums, a number of broken plastic and containers and much other rubbish. Given the exit photographs provided, I find the landlord has proven that the rubbish removal costs incurred were required and were caused by the tenant. Therefore, I award the landlord $1,572.28 for rubbish removal at the end of the tenancy. Garden work
The landlord said the lawns were not properly maintained at the end of the tenancy, and that there was a lot of debris and rocks left in the garden, which had to be removed, before the lawns could be mowed. The landlord provided exit photographs showing the condition of the garden and lawns at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claimed $199.00 to clear the debris and rocks and mow the lawns and provided an invoice confirming this amount claimed. I find the landlord has proven this claim and so award the landlord $199.00 to clear the debris and rocks and mow the lawns at the end of the tenancy. Sink plugs and lightbulbs
The landlord said they had to replace a double set of kitchen sink strainers/plugs in the amount of $18.33, and replace several lightbulbs in the bathroom, including heat lamps in the amount of $24.95, at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided receipts for these items. I find the landlord has proved these claims and so award the landlord $18.33 to replace the kitchen sink strainers/plugs and $24.95 to replace the lightbulbs in the bathroom. Replace locks
The landlord said they had to replace the locks for the front and back doors at the end of the tenancy, as these doors were left damaged at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said the door lock was gone from the front door and the barrel was broken in the back door lock. The landlord claimed $246.62 for these locks and provided a receipt for this. I find the landlord has proven this claim and so award the landlord $246.62 to replace the front and back door locks at the end of the tenancy. The repairs to the front door itself are dealt with below.
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: Front door repairs and repairs to holes in bedroom wall a. The landlord said they had to put a patch inside the locking system of the front door, which was an aluminium angle. They said this was put into the door to fit the locking rather than having to replace the front door. The landlord indicated the tenant’s dog chewed through the bottom of the front door also, which had to be repaired. b. The landlord indicated there were some holes in the walls of the second bedroom and a gouge in the same bedroom where somebody had pushed something into the wall, which had to be repaired. c. The landlord provided exit photographs of the condition of the front door and the bedroom wall holes and gouges at the end of the tenancy, which show holes and gouges in the bedroom walls and damage to the front door as claimed. From the photographs and other evidence, I find the damage to be intentional on the tenant’s part. 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. d. The landlord claimed for the gib stopping, tape and other materials to repair the damaged front door and the holes in the bedroom wall, coming to a total of $340.06 for all materials and $1,280.00 for labour to repair the front door and the holes in the bedroom wall. Of the materials cost of $340.06, $40.76 was an aluminium angle for the front door repair. e. The landlord estimated that the labour cost of $1,280.00 was about equally apportioned as between the repair work for the front door and the gibbing, plastering, sanding and painting required to repair the holes in the bedroom wall, which would be $640.00 labour for each of these repair jobs. f. Therefore, apportioning the cost for each repair job, the front door repair claim would be materials of $40.76 and labour of $640.00, for a total of $680.76. The repair work for the holes in the bedroom wall would be materials in the amount of $299.30 plus labour of $640.00, for a total of $939.30 to repair the holes in the bedroom wall. I find each of these costs reasonable, before considering depreciation. I estimate that of the labour cost of $640.00 to repair and paint the holes in the bedroom wall, that $320.00 of this can be allocated for the painting labour in this regard. Thus, the remaining repair cost for the holes in the bedroom walls is $619.30, before considering the painting work. g. 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. h. In considering the repair of the holes in the bedroom wall, the landlord said the entire premises were last painted in early 2022. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such I deduct the $320.00 cost for painting only of the walls (not plastering and sanding), that I find reasonable to repaint the repaired holes in the bedroom wall by 35% for depreciation to an award of $208.00 for the painting of the holes. Adding this to the rest of the cost of $619.30 to repair the bedroom wall holes, brings the total depreciated cost for repairing and painting the bedroom wall holes to $827.30. I award $827.30 to the landlord to repair and paint the holes in the bedroom wall. i. I do not need to depreciate the repair work for the front door, as the door was repaired but not replaced. As such, I award the landlord $680.76 to repair the front door. Replace carpet j. The landlord said the tenant kept dogs, against the tenancy agreement provisions for no pets, that they had asked the tenant to remove his dogs repeatedly, but the tenant had not done so. The landlord provided routine inspection photographs of the tenant’s dogs at the property and the mattresses kept outside for these dogs. The landlord’s photographs also showed a dog inside the property. The landlord said the carpets at the property smelled strongly of dog urine, and that a square had been cut out of a bedroom carpet by the tenant, during the tenancy. The landlord said they tried to apply a shampoo treatment to the carpet following the tenancy, but the dog urine smell was worse afterwards. The landlord said they had had to replace the carpets at the property because of the square cut out of one of the bedroom carpets and the strong dog urine smell in the carpets. The landlord said there was carpet in the hallway and two bedrooms only. The landlord provided exit photographs of the square cut out of one of the bedroom carpets. However, there was no additional supporting evidence, other than the property manager’s evidence during the hearing, of the dog urine or other dog smell in the carpet, for example by way of a report from a tradesperson doing the carpets or other witness statements. k. I find the tenant cutting the square out of one of the bedroom carpets was likely intentional damage. As this damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. l. I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence of the requirement to replace the other carpets though, in the hallway and other bedroom, as there was no additional supporting evidence provided of the dog urine or other dog smell in the carpet that could not be removed using carpet treatments, for example. Therefore, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the cost of replacing the hallway carpet and the carpet in one of the bedrooms. m. As such, I find the evidence provided shows the landlord had to replace the carpet in one of the bedrooms. n. The landlord claimed $2,403.50 to replace all three carpets. They provided an invoice in this amount, which did not apportion the cost of replacing the carpets in each of the three carpeted areas. Given this, I will divide the cost claimed of $2,403.50 by 3, as three rooms were carpeted as per the invoice, to apportion the total cost to the cost to replace one carpet in the bedroom where the square was cut out of the carpet. Thus, the apportioned claimed cost for one bedroom carpet is $801.16, which I find to be a reasonable cost before considering depreciation. o. The landlord said the carpet had been replaced in 2018 and so was about 7 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of carpets in a rental property, particularly in bedrooms, is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the $801.16 cost apportioned to replacing one bedroom carpet, that I find reasonable, by 70% for depreciation to an award of $240.35 to replace the bedroom carpet where the tenant had cut out the square from the carpet.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Obi Investments Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5326323 — net $3,837.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs – front door	$680.76	Repairs – front door
Repairs – holes in bedroom wall	$827.30	Repairs – holes in bedroom wall
Lock/key replacement	$246.62	Lock/key replacement
Replace sink plugs	$18.33	Replace sink plugs
Replace missing light bulbs	$24.95	Replace missing light bulbs
Rubbish removal	$1,572.28	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$199.00	Lawns and Garden work
Replace furnishings: carpet	$240.35	Replace furnishings: carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,837.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,837.59

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Obi Investments Limited $3,837.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Ms Fong-Anae, representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 775, was called several times without any response. The tenant had not provided any other phone number before the hearing and the landlord confirmed the phone number provided was the last phone number they had for the tenant. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence. After the hearing finished, I received an email from the Registry forwarding an email from the tenant asking what was happening with the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 2 July 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. 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 said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided exit photographs taken on 6 July 2025, some routine inspection photographs taken during the tenancy on 14 January 2025 and on 27 May 2025 and an Entry Inspection Report with photographs. They also provided invoices and receipts. Cleaning
The landlord claimed $366.38 for cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
Most of the exit photographs provided by the landlord were of the outside of the property. The few photographs of the interior of the property at the end of the tenancy did not show the requirement for cleaning the interior of the property at the end of the tenancy. Other photographs provided by the landlord during the hearing were of the property after all the cleaning and other work had been completed, so were not adequate to assess the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy before any cleaning work was completed. As such, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove the cleaning claim and must dismiss this claim. Rubbish removal
The landlord claimed $1,572.28 for rubbish removal. This included having to hire both a 9-metre rubbish skip as well as a 12-metre rubbish skip, rubbish tip fees of $242.28, labour to remove the rubbish and dispose of it at the tip of $200.00 and $100.00 fee to dispose separately of a fridge left at the property. The landlord provided receipts or invoices for all the charges claimed for rubbish removal.
The exit photographs provided showed a huge amount of rubbish left by the tenant, including household refuse, dog toys and faeces, broken furniture, mattresses, wood, rocks, bedding, and old bath, 2 large drums, a number of broken plastic and containers and much other rubbish. Given the exit photographs provided, I find the landlord has proven that the rubbish removal costs incurred were required and were caused by the tenant. Therefore, I award the landlord $1,572.28 for rubbish removal at the end of the tenancy. Garden work
The landlord said the lawns were not properly maintained at the end of the tenancy, and that there was a lot of debris and rocks left in the garden, which had to be removed, before the lawns could be mowed. The landlord provided exit photographs showing the condition of the garden and lawns at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claimed $199.00 to clear the debris and rocks and mow the lawns and provided an invoice confirming this amount claimed. I find the landlord has proven this claim and so award the landlord $199.00 to clear the debris and rocks and mow the lawns at the end of the tenancy. Sink plugs and lightbulbs
The landlord said they had to replace a double set of kitchen sink strainers/plugs in the amount of $18.33, and replace several lightbulbs in the bathroom, including heat lamps in the amount of $24.95, at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided receipts for these items. I find the landlord has proved these claims and so award the landlord $18.33 to replace the kitchen sink strainers/plugs and $24.95 to replace the lightbulbs in the bathroom. Replace locks
The landlord said they had to replace the locks for the front and back doors at the end of the tenancy, as these doors were left damaged at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said the door lock was gone from the front door and the barrel was broken in the back door lock. The landlord claimed $246.62 for these locks and provided a receipt for this. I find the landlord has proven this claim and so award the landlord $246.62 to replace the front and back door locks at the end of the tenancy. The repairs to the front door itself are dealt with below.
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: Front door repairs and repairs to holes in bedroom wall a. The landlord said they had to put a patch inside the locking system of the front door, which was an aluminium angle. They said this was put into the door to fit the locking rather than having to replace the front door. The landlord indicated the tenant’s dog chewed through the bottom of the front door also, which had to be repaired. b. The landlord indicated there were some holes in the walls of the second bedroom and a gouge in the same bedroom where somebody had pushed something into the wall, which had to be repaired. c. The landlord provided exit photographs of the condition of the front door and the bedroom wall holes and gouges at the end of the tenancy, which show holes and gouges in the bedroom walls and damage to the front door as claimed. From the photographs and other evidence, I find the damage to be intentional on the tenant’s part. 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. d. The landlord claimed for the gib stopping, tape and other materials to repair the damaged front door and the holes in the bedroom wall, coming to a total of $340.06 for all materials and $1,280.00 for labour to repair the front door and the holes in the bedroom wall. Of the materials cost of $340.06, $40.76 was an aluminium angle for the front door repair. e. The landlord estimated that the labour cost of $1,280.00 was about equally apportioned as between the repair work for the front door and the gibbing, plastering, sanding and painting required to repair the holes in the bedroom wall, which would be $640.00 labour for each of these repair jobs. f. Therefore, apportioning the cost for each repair job, the front door repair claim would be materials of $40.76 and labour of $640.00, for a total of $680.76. The repair work for the holes in the bedroom wall would be materials in the amount of $299.30 plus labour of $640.00, for a total of $939.30 to repair the holes in the bedroom wall. I find each of these costs reasonable, before considering depreciation. I estimate that of the labour cost of $640.00 to repair and paint the holes in the bedroom wall, that $320.00 of this can be allocated for the painting labour in this regard. Thus, the remaining repair cost for the holes in the bedroom walls is $619.30, before considering the painting work. g. 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. h. In considering the repair of the holes in the bedroom wall, the landlord said the entire premises were last painted in early 2022. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such I deduct the $320.00 cost for painting only of the walls (not plastering and sanding), that I find reasonable to repaint the repaired holes in the bedroom wall by 35% for depreciation to an award of $208.00 for the painting of the holes. Adding this to the rest of the cost of $619.30 to repair the bedroom wall holes, brings the total depreciated cost for repairing and painting the bedroom wall holes to $827.30. I award $827.30 to the landlord to repair and paint the holes in the bedroom wall. i. I do not need to depreciate the repair work for the front door, as the door was repaired but not replaced. As such, I award the landlord $680.76 to repair the front door. Replace carpet j. The landlord said the tenant kept dogs, against the tenancy agreement provisions for no pets, that they had asked the tenant to remove his dogs repeatedly, but the tenant had not done so. The landlord provided routine inspection photographs of the tenant’s dogs at the property and the mattresses kept outside for these dogs. The landlord’s photographs also showed a dog inside the property. The landlord said the carpets at the property smelled strongly of dog urine, and that a square had been cut out of a bedroom carpet by the tenant, during the tenancy. The landlord said they tried to apply a shampoo treatment to the carpet following the tenancy, but the dog urine smell was worse afterwards. The landlord said they had had to replace the carpets at the property because of the square cut out of one of the bedroom carpets and the strong dog urine smell in the carpets. The landlord said there was carpet in the hallway and two bedrooms only. The landlord provided exit photographs of the square cut out of one of the bedroom carpets. However, there was no additional supporting evidence, other than the property manager’s evidence during the hearing, of the dog urine or other dog smell in the carpet, for example by way of a report from a tradesperson doing the carpets or other witness statements. k. I find the tenant cutting the square out of one of the bedroom carpets was likely intentional damage. As this damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. l. I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence of the requirement to replace the other carpets though, in the hallway and other bedroom, as there was no additional supporting evidence provided of the dog urine or other dog smell in the carpet that could not be removed using carpet treatments, for example. Therefore, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the cost of replacing the hallway carpet and the carpet in one of the bedrooms. m. As such, I find the evidence provided shows the landlord had to replace the carpet in one of the bedrooms. n. The landlord claimed $2,403.50 to replace all three carpets. They provided an invoice in this amount, which did not apportion the cost of replacing the carpets in each of the three carpeted areas. Given this, I will divide the cost claimed of $2,403.50 by 3, as three rooms were carpeted as per the invoice, to apportion the total cost to the cost to replace one carpet in the bedroom where the square was cut out of the carpet. Thus, the apportioned claimed cost for one bedroom carpet is $801.16, which I find to be a reasonable cost before considering depreciation. o. The landlord said the carpet had been replaced in 2018 and so was about 7 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the lifespan of carpets in a rental property, particularly in bedrooms, is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the $801.16 cost apportioned to replacing one bedroom carpet, that I find reasonable, by 70% for depreciation to an award of $240.35 to replace the bedroom carpet where the tenant had cut out the square from the carpet.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Obi Investments Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5326323 — Property damage at 3A Fisher Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5326323 — Property damage at 3A Fisher Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions