Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5333340 — Property damage
Decided 20 Nov 2025 · Published 20 Nov 2025 · Application 5333340
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
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.
- Vayana Moke-Murray Moke-Murray must pay [The landlord/s] $4,447.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy, which ran from 1 October 2021 to 17 July 2025.
- The total of all claims listed by the landlord was $10,174.19 plus GST, plus the filing fee.
- The landlord sought only $5,000, from which the bond and some overpaid rent was deducted, making a total claim of $4,447.14.
- The items listed in the application were discussed at the hearing. The following were withdrawn: a. Replace bedroom 1 door $285.31 +GST b. Replace bedroom 1 door handles $219.38 +GST c. Rehinge doors $132.24 +GST.
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, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- The landlord provided invoices for the amounts claimed, as itemised above. There was no separate invoice for removal of compost. The invoice for $800.02 plus GST for rubbish removal included removal of compost.
- 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 pre and post tenancy inspection photos show that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Missing front door handle b. Missing door handle for the dining room c. Missing shower rose and hose/slider d. Missing toilet roll holder e. Damage to door jamb in bedroom 3 where it has come away from the wall. f. Nine holes in walls in bedrooms and dining room g. Mould in bedrooms where furniture had been, requiring intensive clean before painting.
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- There was also a small fee of $29.52 for a part of the frame on the porch that had come away. I have decided that this is fair wear and tear. The landlord has not proved that the tenant caused the damage.
- At the start of the tenancy, in October 2021, the landlord had recarpeted the property. The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy in July 2025, the property needed to be recarpeted because of significant soiling in the bedrooms. There had been a poor attempt to clean up faeces, leading to the whole house smelling. The landlord did not think that cleaning would be appropriate and would need to be extensive in order to make the property hygienic.
- The landlord provided a quote for recarpeting for $4,410.41. An invoice was not available because the agency had bought carpet in bulk, from which this tenancy had been recarpeted. Therefore, it is possible that the amount actually paid is less than the quote.
- That said, the quote is not unreasonable and is the likely cost of recarpeting. In any event, 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.
- Using the IRD depreciation percentages for rental carpet, over the period of the tenancy, a carpet worth $4,410.41 would have depreciated to between $1,323.00 and $1,395.00. The landlord had the use of the carpet for four years. I have ordered $1,350 for the carpet.
- Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.