Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5363384 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 81 Earn Street, Appleby, Invercargill 9812
Published 3 February 2026 · Application 5363384
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Exemplary damages
- Cleanliness
Order
- Shian Bridget Evans must pay Smart Move Residential Limited As Agent For Siat Bin Chin / Moa Corporate Trustee Ltd /Ghee Hong Kok $6,453.10 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $113.00 (3076230-019) to Smart Move Residential Limited As Agent For Siat Bin Chin / Moa Corporate Trustee Ltd /Ghee Hong Kok immediately.
Reasons
- The tenant failed to make herself available for the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant over paid her rent and this is taken into consideration in the table.
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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The property was left in a very poor state with significant damage.
- Whilst the tenant left on a Friday, there were six broken windows, and the property needed to be secured on the day she vacated. Whilst the keys were left on the Sunday and the tenant was returning the Tuesday to fix the windows the property needed to be secured, and costs sought have been ordered. They include the changing of the locks and the boarding up of the windows pending repair.
- 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
- The landlord seeks compensation for decontamination of Methamphetamine; however the levels were much lower than the recommended levels in the recommendations of the Gluckman report. The costs for the decontamination cannot be awarded. Insurance have also failed to payout based on the levels.
- However, there was a significant amount of damages left at the property, some of which the insurance paid out and some that still left the landlord out of pocket. That included significant building work with damage to a door that needed replaced, the window sill that had been chewed and damaged by the ldog that occupied without the landlords consent.
- Whilst the landlord acknowledged that the property was far from perfect at the commencement of the tenancy, the tenants dog had caused further damage to the carpets and caused urine stains.
- The curtains had all been ripped and pulled off the railings and deep gouges where left in the lino. The tenant advised that it was from an axe.
- Whilst there were six windows smashed, and many throughout the tenancy, the tenant remedied this after she moved out, however to secure the property they needed to be boarded over the weekend until the tenant was able to get them fixed.
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved. I am satisfied that the outstanding amounts not covered by insurance are proven.
- 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.
- Smart Move Residential Limited As Agent For Siat Bin Chin / Moa Corporate Trustee Ltd /Ghee Hong Kok claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by allowing the use of methamphetamine in the property.
- A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- It is unlawful to use illicit drugs.
- The landlord showed that the test results pre tenancy and after the tenancy was proof of meth use in the property. However the levels are not of the level that requires decontamination, it is still evidence of some use.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Having considered the evidence on the balance of probabilities I accept and make an award accordingly.
- Because Smart Move Residential Limited As Agent For Siat Bin Chin / Moa Corporate Trustee Ltd /Ghee Hong Kok has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.