What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395342 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $5,016.92 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5395342?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5395342 D…: $2,380.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $158.13 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpets: $2,070.79 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395342?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395342?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14199990-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395342 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $5,016.92 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5395342?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5395342 D…: $2,380.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $158.13 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpets: $2,070.79 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395342?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395342?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14199990-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Rongopai Street, Palmerston North 4414 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5395342 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5395342 — net $5,016.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5395342 dated 24/06/2026	$2,380.00	Previous order application 5395342 dated 24/06/2026
Rubbish removal: carpets and other items	$380.00	Rubbish removal: carpets and other items
Replace furnishings: carpets	$2,070.79	Replace furnishings: carpets
Window repairs	$158.13	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,016.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,016.92

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $5,016.92 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 5395342 dated 24/06/2026$2,380.00 Rubbish removal: carpets and other items$380.00 Replace furnishings: carpets$2,070.79 Window repairs$158.13 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$5,016.92 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,016.92

Reasons

The landlord attended the telephone hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to the premises and the replacement of a dehumidifier.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The carpet was damaged by dog urine and had to be removed and replaced. This claim was supported by the reports of two professional carpet cleaners. This was intentional damage based on the decision and reasoning in Guo v Korck referred to above. b. The glass in the front door was broken. This was careless damage and the amount claimed is less than the insurance excess.

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 have considered 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 produced evidence that the carpet was new in March 2023. This tenancy ended in September 2025. The Inland Revenue Department’s depreciation schedule states that carpet in a residential tenancy has a life of eight years. Having deducted two years’ depreciation, the amount claimed is still less than the depreciated value and so it is appropriate that the Tribunal awards the landlord the full replacement cost. It is also appropriate to award the landlord a modest sum for the costs of dumping the carpet that was removed together with an amount for her time and petrol in doing so.

As the dehumidifier was not shown as a chattel of the tenancy in the tenancy agreement and the landlord could not provide any proof of its cost or the tenant’s liability for its replacement, the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Because [The tenant/s] landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5395342 — net $5,016.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5395342 dated 24/06/2026	$2,380.00	Previous order application 5395342 dated 24/06/2026
Rubbish removal: carpets and other items	$380.00	Rubbish removal: carpets and other items
Replace furnishings: carpets	$2,070.79	Replace furnishings: carpets
Window repairs	$158.13	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,016.92
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,016.92

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $5,016.92 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 5395342 dated 24/06/2026$2,380.00 Rubbish removal: carpets and other items$380.00 Replace furnishings: carpets$2,070.79 Window repairs$158.13 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$5,016.92 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,016.92

Reasons

The landlord attended the telephone hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to the premises and the replacement of a dehumidifier.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The carpet was damaged by dog urine and had to be removed and replaced. This claim was supported by the reports of two professional carpet cleaners. This was intentional damage based on the decision and reasoning in Guo v Korck referred to above. b. The glass in the front door was broken. This was careless damage and the amount claimed is less than the insurance excess.
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 have considered 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 produced evidence that the carpet was new in March 2023. This tenancy ended in September 2025. The Inland Revenue Department’s depreciation schedule states that carpet in a residential tenancy has a life of eight years. Having deducted two years’ depreciation, the amount claimed is still less than the depreciated value and so it is appropriate that the Tribunal awards the landlord the full replacement cost. It is also appropriate to award the landlord a modest sum for the costs of dumping the carpet that was removed together with an amount for her time and petrol in doing so.
As the dehumidifier was not shown as a chattel of the tenancy in the tenancy agreement and the landlord could not provide any proof of its cost or the tenant’s liability for its replacement, the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
Because [The tenant/s] landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5395342 — Property damage at 5 Rongopai Street, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5395342 — Property damage at 5 Rongopai Street, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.