Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5366082 — Property damage at 28A Takutai Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052
Decided 15 Apr 2026 · Published 15 Apr 2026 · Application 5366082
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The tenants name and identifying details must not be published.
- [The tenants] must pay Goodwin Realty Limited as agent for Peter Alexander $500.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,100.00 immediately apportioned as follows: Goodwin Realty Limited as agent for Peter Alexander: $550.00 [The tenants]: $2,550.00
Reasons
- The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams.
- Nikki Ramage of Goodwin Realty attended for Mr Alexander, who also attended.
- Both the tenants attended with their representative [representative’s name].
- The tenants seek return of their remaining bond of $3,100.00.
- The tenancy began on 27 July 2024 and ended on 18 July 2025.
- The landlord applies for compensation for the owner’s losses to remedy damage alleged to have occurred during the tenancy.
- The issues for determination are whether the landlord can prove the tenants are liable for damage and any consequential losses. Legal principles
- The succeed in a damage claim the 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. 1
- 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. 2 In this case the lesser amount is four weeks’ rent, which amounts to $1,350.00.
- 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. 3 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 2 RTA s 49B(3)(a).
- The test for carelessness in this context is: 4 Was the tenant exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances.
- In the United Kingdom, carelessness has been explained as follows: 5 Its usual meaning is the lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought... Also heedless or thoughtless, and can cover a situation of inadvertent lack of care. The standard of care is the standard of an ordinary careful person. An ordinary careful person is not expected to take precautions against every foreseeable risk, but only against those risks that are reasonably likely to happen.
- In quantifying a landlord’s losses arising from damage, betterment and depreciation must be taken account of. 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, the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Tiles
- The landlord alleges the tenants are liable for tile damage including blue staining, chips, spillage staining, and water stains in the kitchen/dining area and a stain under a sink in a bathroom.
- I have reviewed the photographs and heard from the landlord but am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the alleged damage occurred during the tenancy to an extent greater than ordinary wear and tear. The photographs of the alleged kitchen/dining area damage are close-up photographs whereas the earlier (no damage) photographs for comparison are taken from further away. I am not satisfied the blemishes were not present prior to the tenancy beginning.
- The under-sink stain is consistent with water seepage or spillage that would occur with ordinary prudent use of the sink. The brown discolouration of the stain is a similar hue to pre-existing discolouration which indicating the tiles naturally discolour in this way.
- The claim is dismissed. 3 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 4 David Grinlinton Residential Tenancies – The Law and Practice (4 th Edition, LexisNexis, Wellington, 2012) at 145. 5 Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 Carpets
- The tenants’ young daughter likely stained her bedroom carpet with some kind of pen ink. There is a stain in the study wardrobe also. Possibly, the automatic insecticide has stained sections of carpet. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability.
- The carpets are described in the landlord’s “Owner Claims” document as “fully depreciated at 8 to 9 years old. Mr Alexander’s insurance company contributed only a modest amount to his costs to replace the carpets in various rooms after applying an excess to each room.
- I cannot quantify the landlord’s loss with any accuracy. However, it is appropriate to order the tenants to pay the landlord nominal damages of $250.00 towards the cost of replacing the carpets. Walls
- The landlord claims the tenants damaged the walls. It is likely that the tenants pulled away a chip of paint when removing an adhesive backed plastic picture hook in the front entry area. The tenants probably also erred by using automatically spraying insecticide which stained the walls in several places.
- This damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. I am not satisfied that the tenants did not carelessly cause the damage.
- I am not satisfied that any other instances of alleged wall damage occurred during the tenancy and were more than fair wear and tear.
- The landlord’s invoice from Profile Painters records labour cost of repairing spray damage and adhesives damage (not all of which is attributable to the tenants) of $520.00 (pre-GST). The invoice includes material costs of $120.00 (pre-GST) including for repairs for which the tenants are not liable. The premises’ internal paintwork was about two years old when the tenancy ended. Paintwork general has an expected lifespan of about five years. I quantify the tenants’ liability at three-fifths of $500.00, which totals $300.00. Wooden floors
- The landlord alleges the tenants are responsible for pot plant-related discolouration of the wooden floors’ polyurethane on the first stairway landing, deep floor scratches on the second landing, and more deep scratches on the top landing.
- The landlord’s post-tenancy photographs of the damage are close-ups, but the comparison pre-tenancy photographs are mid-distance photographs. I cannot assess the alleged damage as occurring during the tenancy to a level beyond ordinary fair wear and tear. Further, the floors are 25 years old but have probably never been re- sanded and recoated. They are overdue for refurbishment or in other words they are fully depreciated.
- This claim is dismissed. Stove
- The landlord claims the tenants damaged the stove grill’s rubber feet. However, the tenants say they are unaware of any damage and the landlord’s photographs do not rebut the tenants’ evidence.
- This claim is dismissed. Curtains
- The curtains in the master bedroom were stained by some kind of chemical process during the tenancy. The most likely explanation is that the staining was caused by the tenants using automatically spraying insecticide which inadvertently sprayed onto the curtains.
- Mr Alexander’s insurance company reimbursed him about $20,000.00 of the approximately $22,500.00 cost of replacing the curtains. Part of the difference in payout was the excess of $1,350.00.
- The tenants are liable for the curtain damage, but the landlord suffered no loss once regard is had to depreciation and betterment. The curtains had a likely useful lifespan of about eight years old and they were about seven years old. Ironically, the landlord is better off because the damage occurred, and the insurer has paid for the greater proportion of the cost to install new curtains. Piano keys
- The landlord attributes a sticky residue on the piano’s keyboard to the tenants. However, the pre-tenancy photographs suggest the residue predates the tenancy.
- This claim is dismissed. Joinery, bifolds, and shelving
- The landlord claims for burn-type marks and mould stains to the joinery. There is a mark on Rimu shelving which may have been caused by a sticked being stuck on the shelf and removed. The landlord alleges the tenants damaged the study’s bifold doors.
- I am not satisfied that the burn marks were not present prior to the tenancy beginning or the mould stains are not in the nature of ordinary wear and tear. The minor mark on the shelf is of a de minimis nature and I am not satisfied it is more than fair wear and tear.
- The landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the bifold doors occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord’s comparator photographs of the doors are taken from the mid-distance and do not satisfactorily exclude pre-existing damage. Non-publication
- The tenants request non-publication of their names and identifying details.
- The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 6 6 RTA s 95A(1).
- The tenants have substantially succeeded in their claim for the bond. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified by the tenants’ conduct of any other circumstances.
- It follows, the Tribunal grants the tenants’ application for non-publication.