Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5339254 — Property damage at 118 Reynolds Avenue, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8053
Decided 10 Nov 2025 · Published 10 Nov 2025 · Application 5339254
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
- Leaks
Order
- [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Vision Property Management Limited as agent for Kosei Ono $18,520.52 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Reasons
- Ms Chaplin represented the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that the notice of hearing was served on the tenant by email and that the tenant was aware of the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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 the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit 1 .
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- The tenant did not return all the keys or the garage door remote controls. The sink plugs were missing 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 2 .
- The following damage was caused during the tenancy: •The toilet cistern was full of deodorisers and had to be cleared •Curtains were stained and some had to be replaced •A bedroom door handle was missing, and the hallway and wardrobe door tracks needed to be repaired •2 lights in the lounge had to be repaired •The heat pump needed new filters and had to be deep cleaned •3 kitchen door fronts were removed and had to be replaced 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA •The carpet was badly stained and needs to be replaced. •The premises required redecoration - the walls, doors, door frames and window frames were damaged and had to be repainted.
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved by invoices and photos and by the evidence Ms Chaplin gave at the hearing.
- Although the carpets were cleaned to remove the stains, they must be replaced as the stain removal was not successful. The tenant’s liability is limited to the amount of the insurance excess on the owner’s insurance policy.
- The landlord has depreciated the claim for painting repairs by about 40% to account for the fact that the tenancy lasted over 7 years. Repairs considered to be fair wear and tear have been excluded from the amount claimed.
- As the application is successful, the tenant must pay the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee.