Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5400842 — Property damage
Decided 14 Apr 2026 · Published 14 Apr 2026 · Application 5400842
- Property damage
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 Landlord’s name and identifying details.
- Supreme Reggae Masina Wano must pay [The landlord/s] $5,684.88 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 5 February 2026 under this application number.
Reasons
- Only the landlord attended the hearing.
- This matter was originally heard on 5 February 2026. This tenancy began on 10 February 2025 but the tenancy was abandoned with rent owing and the landlord took back possession on 15 December 2025.
- At the first hearing orders were made for rent arrears, water rates and filing fee reimbursement. The bond was released to the landlord.
- The landlord’s claims for cleaning, rubbish removal, damage and methamphetamine decontamination were adjourned for further hearing to allow the landlord to file a detailed report setting out details of the damage claimed and the insurance position, including excesses applied, together with any relevant invoices.
- The tenant did not attend the hearing on 5 February 2026 and did not attend the hearing today. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served with the landlord’s application in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and so the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
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) RTA.
- The landlord said that the tenant did not leave the property clean and tidy, that the lawns were not mown, and a huge amount of rubbish was left behind including a large couch, bed base, various bikes and scooters, a shopping trolley, and piles of miscellaneous items. The garden shed was left full of rubbish. The landlord produced items of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy and the rubbish left behind.
- The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $1,587.00 to clean, mow and remove the rubbish.
- This claim is proved. I am satisfied that this amount is reasonable and so order compensation accordingly.
- The landlord said that the tenant removed the gas bottle at the end of the tenancy. They produced a photo showing the gas bottle at the start of the tenancy and the gas bottle missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $99.72 for replacing the gas bottle. This claim is proved.
- The landlord said that the tenant did not return any of the keys. The landlord produced an invoice for $92.00 for replacing the front door lock and $467.22 to replace the security gate motor and remote. The landlord said that they tried to just replace the remote were advised that it would be cheaper to buy a new security gate motor with a pre-programmed remote and so this is what they did.
- These claims are proved. I am satisfied that the amounts claimed are reasonable and so order accordingly.
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 claimed compensation for damage including a broken fence, damaged blinds (leaves missing), a broken ranchslider (not fitting into runners and with handle and lock broken), various holes in interior walls, garden shed damage, external damage and graffiti clean.
- The landlord produced ingoing inspection photos, photos from the end of the tenancy, and routine inspection photos that were taken shortly before the tenancy ended, invoices and an insurance assessors report showing damage that was covered by insurance and the excesses that were applied by the insurer.
- I am satisfied that the landlord has proved that the damage to the items ordered and that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. In each case I have awarded either the amount of repair, or the insurance excess (where there insurance excess is less than the cost of repairs). In the case of the blinds, I have reduced the amount awarded based on the age of the blinds and their likely useful life, and the fact that there was only evidence of damage blinds in two rooms, but the blinds have been replaced throughout the house.
- I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved the other claimed damage. This is because it was not clear based on the evidence that the damage occurred during the tenancy 1 . Methamphetamine contamination
- The landlord said that the property tested positive for methamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy and that their insurer covered the cost of decontamination but applied an excess of $2,500.
- As the landlord did not have a pre-tenancy test this claim could not be proven, and the landlord accepted this at the hearing. Previous order
- On 5 February 2026 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Filing fee and name suppression
- The filing fee was refunded in the previous order made on 5 February 2026 and so I make no further order in respect of this fee.
- The landlord has been the substantially successful party and so is entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.