Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5382121 — Property damage at 25A Vernon Avenue, Takaro, Palmerston North 4412
Decided 25 Mar 2026 · Published 25 Mar 2026 · Application 5382121
- 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 parties’ names and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,315.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s unlawful entry into the property. Standard of proof and evidence
- In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each party must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
- The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
- While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
- By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
- It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
- The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
- The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence confirmed that surfaces had not been cleaned, the oven required cleaning and there were some items remaining at the property in drawers and cupboards. In particular, there was mould on many surfaces which the landlord claimed required treatment. It was also necessary to mow the lawns, clear weeds and remove green waste.
- The landlord provided photographic evidence that the carpets were stained. It produced an invoice and report from a qualified carpet cleaner confirming that the carpets could not be cleaned. It was appropriate that the landlord attempted to clean the carpets and the amount claimed is proven.
- The landlord’s invoice for the cleaning is at the higher end of invoices for the cleaning and rubbish removal required. The amount awarded has been reduced to reflect that the cleaning left the property in a condition that was more than reasonably clean and reasonably tidy as required under the RTA.
- 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 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 landlord provided photographic that the tenant had caused three holes in the walls, damaged the front door frame, broke the door from the lounge to the garage and removed the toilet seat cover. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant accepted liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are commensurate with invoices which the Tribunal regularly sees for such repairs in this area.
- The landlord provided a report from a professional carpet cleaner dated 3 October 2025 stating: “The survey revealed many areas of carpet containing urine from pets in the lounge, dining room, hallway, bedroom 2 and bedroom
- .. Unfortunately in this instance I do not think treatment is a viable option... In my opinion the best option is to replace carpet.”
- The tenant was allowed to have one cat under the tenancy agreement. The tenant acknowledged that they had babysat a dog for a period and there was another cat at the premises. The tenant denied responsibility for any pet urine damage. The tenant accepted that there was some staining caused by them and their guests during the tenancy. The tenant also claimed that she used a carpet cleaner before every three-monthly inspection.
- The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the landlord’s professional contractor that the carpets were damaged by pet urine and required replacement. The landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the carpet was damaged during the tenancy so as to require replacement and that the damage was not caused by fair wear and tear. The landlord’s report confirms that not all rooms were damaged.
- The Tribunal must consider 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. The landlord was unclear about the age of the carpet. The Tribunal accepts that it was at least four years’ old and that half of its useful life had been used. It is therefore appropriate to award the landlord half of the replacement cost to reflect depreciation and the fact that, on the landlord’s evidence, one bedroom was not damaged by animal urine. The tenant’s claim for unlawful entry
- [The tenant/s] claimed the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
- A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant claimed and the landlord accepted that a contractor entered the property on 1 November 2024 without having given the required notice. The landlord has committed an unlawful act.
- 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) RTA.
- Section 109(2)(b) RTA provides that a tenant cannot apply for exemplary damages later than twelve months after the commission of an unlawful act. The tenant’s application was made on 5 November 2025 which is outside the one- year period.
- The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages must therefore be dismissed.
- The tenant’s claim for compensation remains. The tenant has not suffered any tangible loss such as loss or damage to property. The tenant’s claim is for an intangible loss. It is well established in law that where the loss suffered is intangible, awards must be kept modest. Some degree of anxiety and stress has been considered an inevitable corollary to contracts such as residential tenancies. Virtually any breach brings with it some degree of disappointment and upset, and almost every action could give rise to a claim for intangible loss. It is very difficult to put a price on an intangible, when it is not open to mathematical calculation, and requires some degree of subjective assessment and impression. The primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
- The Tribunal accepts the tenant’s and their witness’ evidence that the tenants each suffered distress and shock at awaking to find a stranger in their property. The provisions of section 48 RTA are designed to protect tenants’ privacy and from such unwelcome intrusions. The Tribunal accepts that the failure by the landlord to give notice was due to carelessness and was not intentional or deliberate. While the breach was of short duration, the tenants gave evidence that its impact was ongoing. However, there is no evidence that the tenant took any steps about the intrusion until after the tenancy had ended.
- The Tribunal has awarded the tenant a sum that is appropriate having considered these factors. Name suppression and filing fee
- As both parties have had success in their applications and there is no special public interest in this decision, it is appropriate that both parties’ names be suppressed and that each bears their own filing fees.