Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5348324 — Property damage
Decided 10 Dec 2025 · Published 10 Dec 2025 · Application 5348324
- 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 parties’ names and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,107.05 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 9 December 2025.
- The landlord applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant served a withdrawal notice for family violence dated 18 August 2025. The tenant vacated the premises on 29 August 2025. Rent and Water
- The landlord claimed rent to 12 September 2025 in the sum of $335.71.
- The withdrawal notice is dated 18 August 2025. It appears to comply with the requirements of section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) but does not specify the delivery date or the end date of the tenancy. I have assumed that it was delivered on 18 August 2025. Section 56B provides that the tenant must give “at least” 2 days’ notice. I consider the implication must be, if no end date is specified in the notice, that the tenancy terminates after 2 days. This is consistent with section 51(3) of the Act, which requires every termination notice to specify the vacate date.
- The tenant emailed the landlord on 22 August 2025, stating that her final day at the premises would be 29 August 2025. The landlord has treated this as the equivalent of 21 days’ notice of termination and claimed rent to 12 September 2025. The landlord submitted that the tenant could not give a termination notice and then decide to stay at the premises for an indeterminate period.
- I find that the tenant is liable for rent to the date she vacated on 29 August 2025, pursuant to section 60 of the Act. Tenants are liable for rent if they remain in occupation after termination of the tenancy. The tenancy terminated on 2 days’ notice in accordance with the withdrawal notice. The rent was paid to 2 September 2025. The tenant has overpaid rent by four days ($382.84).
- The landlord claimed water charges of $335.24. The tenant said there had been previous issues with the plumbing at the premises. However, so far as the limited evidence indicates, this was resolved in late 2024. A tenant must pay for the water they use. On the face of it, the tenant is liable to pay the water charges from January to 8 September 2025, as shown in the invoices. Garage Remotes
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
- The tenant accepted that she did not return the garage remotes. The landlord is awarded the cost of replacement. Damage
- 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. A tenant is liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
- 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. The insurance excess was $500.00, and the weekly rent was $670.00.
- 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.
- 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.
- There was damage to the walls of the premises during the tenancy. The damage includes some deep cuts and chips in the wall. In one area the plasterboard had been punctured right through. The exit inspection report refers to damage in three rooms. I acknowledge that the tenant’s child may have caused some of the scuffing, but other areas of damage would have required force. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not proved that the damage was not careless or intentional.
- The tenant challenged the repair costs as being excessive. The tenant’s father, who is a handyman, said he could repair one of the rooms (which had pink paint, a change the tenant had made) for $450.00. The tenant wanted to remedy the room, and her father was willing to do so, but they were not given an opportunity.
- The tenant had an obligation at the end of the tenancy to quit the premises. The landlord was under no obligation to allow the tenant back into the premises to perform repairs. The obligation is on the landlord, not the tenant, to repair. As to the cost of repairs, while this is much higher than the tenant’s estimate, the evidence did not include a quote from an independent tradesperson, for example, establishing that the work could have been done to a professional standard for less.
- There was damage to an external side gate, which had come off its hinges, and the back of the mailbox had fallen off. The toilet seat had come loose. The clothesline had pulled away from its mounting on the side of the fence. The tenant said the landlord had tried to repair the gate several times. The tenant denied damaging the mailbox and said she had not used the clothesline because it was rusty. The available ingoing photographs (taken by the owners) do not show the clothesline.
- The damage to the gate and the clothesline is more than fair wear and tear, but I am not satisfied that the tenant caused the damage. The damage to the mailbox could simply be the effects of weather and use over time. The landlord’s photograph showed the back cover lying on the ground next to the mailbox – it does not look distorted or mishandled. The toilet seat is a minor repair, which could have occurred due to wear from use. I decline to award compensation for these items.
- One issue raised by the tenant related to the landlord’s invoice dated 24 September 2025 for “Plumbing Repairs/Replacement” in the sum of $5,039.43. The tenant noted that this was precisely the same amount as the repair invoice from the builder dated 18 September 2025. I accept the landlord’s evidence that this was not related to plumbing work performed in 2024. The invoice was for the repairs claimed in this proceeding. Filing Fee and Suppression
- The Tribunal is required, “in any proceedings that relate to withdrawal from a tenancy under section 56B”, to order suppression (section 95A(1A)). These proceedings do involve withdrawal under section 56B. To avoid any possible breach of the Act, I grant suppression to both parties.
- The landlord’s application has been partly successful and is entitled to the full bond. I award the filing fee.