Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5371524 — Property damage
Decided 20 Jan 2026 · Published 20 Jan 2026 · Application 5371524
- 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 tenant’s name and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] must pay Real Homes New Zealand Limited as agent for Terry and Betty Clements $2,910.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,170.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Real Homes New Zealand Limited as agent for Terry and Betty Clements immediately.
- The application for compensation for the repair of a kitchen window, water damage from leaking in the laundry, and for missing chattels is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing today. Ms Baird represented the landlord. The tenant attended by phone from overseas.
- The landlord has applied for compensation for carpet cleaning, key replacement, and the repair of damage; refund of the bond; and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
- I set out the background to this tenancy in my decision on the tenant’s application dated 25 July 2025 1 . I need not repeat it here.
- Following the end of the tenancy the landlord has applied for some but not all costs for the repair of damage and for missing chattels.
- As I previously recorded, the premises were formerly army barracks that are about 80 years old. The premises comprise several apartments and have required considerable work to satisfy local body and fire service regulatory requirements.
- The relationship between the tenant and the owner of the premises was difficult at times. The owner resides in an apartment directly below the apartment the tenant occupied.
- In my earlier order I awarded the tenant compensation of $1,800.00 for his loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to ongoing construction work, principally due to noise. I dismissed his application for exemplary damages. 1 See [2025] NZTT 5276741
- The application now before the Tribunal is for compensation for alleged careless damage by the tenant. The landlord does not allege any intentional damage by the tenant. Relevant law
- A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises and must, at the end of the tenancy, return all kays and leave any chattels provided by the landlord 2 .
- I set out the case law that addresses claims for compensation for a breach of a party’s statutory responsibilities in my previous decision. I need not repeat it here other than to note that compensation is not punitive; it seeks to restore a party (in this case the landlord) to the position they would have been in but for the breach by the other party (in this case the tenant).
- 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 3 . Claims accepted by the tenant
- The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for carpet cleaning and for the replacement of 6 keys. I have allowed those claims, marked *, by consent. Claims proved by the landlord
- I find that the landlord’s claims for damage to the kitchen bench, damage to the oven racks (caused probably by the tenant’s cleaner using an abrasive cleaner that caused corrosive damage), the repair of walls due to the installation of picture rails, damage to bedroom 1, and damage to the veranda weatherboards and decking are proved by the evidence the landlord produced – photos and invoices. Although the tenant submitted that the damage was fair wear and tear, I find that it went beyond what might reasonably be considered normal expected wear through use.
- I have reduced the claims for landlord labour for the veranda repairs from $40.00 per hour to $30.00 per hour, the standard reimbursement rate the Tribunal applies for landlord labour. 2 See section 40(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 3 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA
- The tenant’s defence that the landlord has made no insurance claim for the benchtop damage yet so he cannot be liable cannot succeed. That the landlord is insured simply limits the amount that can be claimed as compensation to the amount of the insurance excess. It is the fact of insurance, not the fact of an insurance claim, that is the relevant factor.
- Neither can the tenant’s defence that the premises required repairs and redecoration relieve him from responsibility for the careless damage he caused. I am satisfied that the landlord has been careful to separate out the damage caused by the tenant from other repair work. Claims not proved by the landlord
- I have not been persuaded that the tenant caused careless damage to the laundry from leaking over time that then affected the wall linings of apartments 2 and 3. The landlord alleged that the damage was caused by the laundry tub overflowing. The tenant denied that. He said he notified the landlord of water damage in the laundry and a plumber engaged by the landlord could not established where the leaking was coming from.
- Given the extent of repairs required to parts of the premises so graphically shown in the photos produced in evidence, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage in the laundry was careless damaged caused by the tenant over time.
- The same applies to the damage to the window frame in the kitchen. The landlord considers that the damage was the result of the tenant running an electric cord through the top of the window allowing the ingress of water. While that is possible, it is not the sole probable cause given the extent of the rot in other wooden areas of the premises as shown in the photos.
- The tenant denies removing any chattels, other than one framed mirror which he said was his. When the tenancy started another property management company was the landlord. The owner then seems to have managed the tenancy for a period before the current landlord was appointed as the owner’s agent.
- The initial tenancy agreement produced in evidence does not appear to contain a signed list of chattels. The tenant said the premises were rented unfurnished. He said that an old dress mirror and a fin heater were present when he left the premises. The other mirror belonged to him. He noted that the claim for missing chattels was only added later, long after he had vacated.
- I am unable to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the tenant failed to return chattels (2 mirrors and a fin heater) the landlord alleges were provided at the start of the tenancy. This claim fails for lack of proof. Result
- The landlord’s proven claims amount to $4,080.00. The bond will be paid to the landlord in full. After deducting the bond, the tenant must pay the landlord $2,910.00 which includes reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
- The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression.
- The tenant sought name suppression. I order suppression of the tenant’s name in this case. First, he has partly succeeded in defending some of the landlord’s claims. Secondly, because I granted the tenant name suppression when I heard his application, that needs to continue otherwise the first order would be voided. Thirdly, there is no public interest in this case. The landlord’s claims are unexceptional.